Should Shellee Hale Be Protected Under Press Sheild?

[RawAlex]

I am going with yes, mostly because the posts here were extensions of what was on her blogs - if what is on her blogs is protected, what was discussed here is just an extension of that material.

I don't like it, but the logic seems to follow for me.

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I am going with yes, mostly because the posts here were extensions of what was on her blogs - if what is on her blogs is protected, what was discussed here is just an extension of that material.

I don't like it, but the logic seems to follow for me.

So what you are saying is that if you have a blog (and any moron can have one...and I am sure you do), you can say what you like, where you like, when you like and you have some kind of immunity. WRONG. Then that moron goes on a libelous jaunt through cyber space ruining businesses, breaking up marriages, bringing down politicians with what would be totally illegal and libelous as fuck but has protection. That is like defending Perez Hilton for stealing pictures. I know, Alex, you don't read my posts....because sometimes you say the dumbest fucking things. This is right up there with your Trixie rants.:whi stling:whi stling:whi stling:whi stling

[Hell Puppy]

I would have to weigh intent.

If the intent is to provide the public with news and information, then I see no difference in the manner of publication or credentials of the writer.

If the intent is other, especially self serving or intending only to damage someone, then it shouldn't be protected.

[RawAlex]

if intent to damage was the standard, then Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report would both have been shut down a long time ago. The standard isn't intent, it hinges on the truth, or at least information from sources that say it is so.