| MediaGuy |
07-02-2009 06:14 PM |
Love the tit-bits:
Quote:
... just because she has a license in private investigative work and holds a degree in medicine doesn?t mean she can be awarded protections for all aspects of news gathering and dissemination
|
Neither does having a few blogs up with meaningless content for a few months make one a "journalist" based on comments board-posted over a year before.
Quote:
"...vaguely contends that she has published articles in one legitimate newspaper and several trade journals, this court gives no credence to these contentions ?,?
|
If I interviewed Jerry Garcia for a music magazine, could I write here that someone saw Hugh Hefner dangling his wing-wang at Michael Jackson?
Quote:
...there were several discrepancies with her testimony at a pre-trial hearing.
|
Oh, the juiciest tit-bits left out!! Calumny! Booo! Come on let's hear here!
Quote:
posters should not be given the same protections as print or online news journalists.
|
Aw. So everyone here is in potential legal shit...
And my favorite (hadn't even thought of this one), from Judge Locuascio:
Quote:
?The fact that she never contacted Too Much Media?s representatives, to hear their side of the story, certainly does not suggest the kind of journalistic objectivity and credibility that courts have found to qualify for the protections.?
|
But... but... I read that the posts on that venerable old board were to solicit opinions, elicit some phish, accumulate an industry consensus... did I misunderstand?!? Could objectives somehow have been misunderstood here?!? People! THIS IS A SOCCER MOM!
sigh I swear I thought I had seen the end of pornagraphic predators... and then she came along...
:D |
