Power to bloggers
by Vladimir Cole 
{ May 29th 2006 at 9:37PM }
This ain't strictly gaming related, but there's no doubt that the decision last week by a California appeals court to grant bloggers the same First Amendment rights that are afforded to traditional journalists can be a good thing for gamers.
In a nutshell, the ruling means that we can't be forced by some wicked company to divulge the source of leaked information that we post on the blog. That means that information Joystiq sources send to us (either directly or via our anonymous tips form) and that we subsequently publish is generally protected under the First Amendment. This matters, because it improves the quantity and quality of information through us to you.
Of course, company insiders who are considering divulging information to an online or offline writer of any sort still need to consider whether they can trust the writer to whom they intend to dish. The basic rules of relationships still apply, but this ruling should at the very least remove worry that those who publish online are somehow less protected than those who publish on dead trees.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
dsub @ May 29th 2006 10:16PM
I'm curious...have your first amendment rights ever been violated?
This is a question for all joystiq bloggers, I'm just curious if there has ever been a time when you were forced to change a post for any reason.
Any ruling that aids the gaming industry, or gaming websites, like joystiq, is cool in my book. I was just curious how this change will directly effect my reading.
Nick @ May 29th 2006 10:16PM
It's quite nice in this age of NSA Phone Tapping and administration cover ups to see a verdict come through which protects the most basic rights of journalism. It's items like these which remind me that the system isn't entirely corrupt, just certain parts of it :P
While this is certainly important for Joystiq and other gaming blogs (NDA's be damned!) it is really most important for political sites like smartwhitehouse.org. After all, if we are going to proclaim blogs as the new form of media, we need to give them the same protections as other "established" forms of news media. How else will we get annother "Deep Throat?"
Nick @ May 29th 2006 10:19PM
By the way, it's nice to see you posting again Vladimir... it's been over a week!
Nick @ May 29th 2006 10:24PM
Huh, that is an interesting query, dsub... Any joystiqers (I'm not sure if that really works.....) care to respond? I'd love to know as well!
Will @ May 29th 2006 10:28PM
"How else will we get annother 'Deep Throat?'"
I've been wondering that ever since I broke up with Sandra.
rocko @ May 29th 2006 10:29PM
i was forced to change my language arts essay on speech in 8th grade.
but then again, i did write it from the point of view of a guy who has tourettes syndrom, and every single line had at least only 6 words that werent curse words
vc @ May 29th 2006 10:35PM
Dsub: companies have frequently threatened to sue, blacklist, or somehow damage us if we didn't pull something down from Joystiq. Most of these issues have been resolved amicably, but earlier this month Konami pitched a hissy fit, denying us access to their E3 Pep Rally because we didn't pull down photographs of their E3 booth.
Read about the Konami tantrum here:
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/05/09/konami-to-blogs-how-does-that-work-again/
vc @ May 29th 2006 10:35PM
Nick --
Sorry for the gap in my posting. I've been in Europe. In fact, I'm in Rome right now.
Nick @ May 29th 2006 10:44PM
Wow, shouldn't you be asleep... it's 3 am over there... right? I've never claimed math to be my strong suit!
vc @ May 29th 2006 11:00PM
It's actually 4:59AM right now... but I'm about to embark on a 14-hour journey... so figured I'd catch up on some blogging. I'll have plenty of time to sleep on the plane.
cringer8 @ May 29th 2006 11:21PM
Well, I'm glad the people RUNNING this site have the right to say what they please. If only we could say the same for people contributing.
Protecting people's "feelings" through censorship is a slippery slope. I see a lot of gay-hating shooting around on one post; while speaking ill of the deceased is "too much." Who decides where to draw the line?
No one should. That's real free speech. Enjoy your rights, Joystiq.
Ross Miller @ May 29th 2006 11:49PM
I'll step in, as I wrote both posts.
Yes, it is too much for 70% of the published comments on a memorial to be bashing the kid, calling it a marketing ploy, or utterly being insensitive. That got out of hand, and comments were disabled out of respect for a person. Normally we don't try to impede open discussion, but that is a little too insensitive and we received many requests to disable comments, a sentiment we shared.
Freedom of speech is important to everyone, but we still don't want to see remarks that contribute nothing to the topic at hand, or any comments that perpetuate stereotypes in an offensive matter. And those are comments that we wouldn't write on this site either.
vc @ May 30th 2006 12:02AM
Also remember that we (as moderators) have the right to nuke all comments that don't follow the basic rule that comments should be additive, should be on-topic, and should not be spam.
cringer8 @ May 30th 2006 12:03AM
Russ, out of respect for you and what Joystiq offers, I will let you have the last word on this. I think you made a good decision. Perhaps future posts of such content matter should be "comment free" from the get-go.
Nick @ May 30th 2006 12:06AM
Besides, the "gay bashing" you're talking about, actually turned into a rather constructive conversation... the sensless hatred in the suicide post simply felt viscious and mean; what's more, it didn't allow anyone to hold any form of informative debate.
Lost Fragment @ May 30th 2006 12:11AM
In a time where it seems our rights are being taken away one by one, it's really nice to see one broadened for a change.
Gamer Jay @ May 30th 2006 12:48AM
"... so figured I'd catch up on some blogging. I'll have plenty of time to sleep on the plane."
Sleep is overrated.
KawF @ May 30th 2006 1:00AM
If you want to be treated as real journalists and get priviledges they do, then try acting like real journalists and at least do some fact-checking before posting stories, because many stories here are just that now, stories, with no base whatsoever in reality. Even just looking at an official press-release every now and then wouldn't hurt.
But as we all know, facts cominf from the company themselves are worth less than rumors found on the internet.
Just a general suggestion...
Regarding the Koanmi issue, I can only side with them on it, why should they play nice with you if you don't play nice with them. It has nothing to do with rights, it has to do with everything, even on the internet, being a relationship between entities, and you decided that you wanted to rock yours.
Beagle Bros 2nd cousin twice removed @ May 30th 2006 1:16AM
Even if an appeals court decision was made in favor of blogging, contributors aren't necessarily totally protected. You have to use your best judgement within any possible constraints, and certainly be lawful.
One of my favorite lines, came from the recent indie film, Thank You for Smoking. And I'm paraphrasing... Question: What's the best thing about the American Legal System? Answer: The endless appeal system.
Appeals can be overturned, and there's always multiple legal angles, including civil suits.
And you don't just have to be worried about legal tangles. I recall someone once lost their job over contributing photos and a topic about the Xbox 360 prior to release, if I'm not totally mistaken.
I'm always curious when NDAs are involved, how certain information is released. But then again, I sometimes wonder if companies release certain information purposely.
Anyway, just my thoughts on the topic.
Beagle Bros 2nd cousin twice removed @ May 30th 2006 1:39AM
Groklaw has a great article about this case, and PJ adds the following commentary
"Also, now that I've read the entire ruling carefully, what the judge actually said is that California's journalist shield law protects news gathering, not bloggers per se."
and goes on to mention...
"The ruling in no way stands for the proposition that it's OK to steal other people's trade secrets. As the ruling states, the facts make clear that somebody did something wrong. But Apple didn't accuse the journalists of having done so by naming them as parties. If they had, they could have used discovery to get the email; they also would then open themselves up to counterclaims. So what this ruling is saying is that while trade secret law is important, it isn't more important than the US Constitutional guarantee of free speech and a free press. "
cringer8 @ May 30th 2006 3:41AM
@VC, on your power to moderate this site:
Every news story contains a "who," "what," "where," "when," "how," and "why." Being on-topic would include the "how" and "why."
As for additive, what's the litmus test for that condition? If a comment is on-topic and spurs conversation, wouldn't it be additive?
Frankly, these conditions were not the reasons for what happened. Ross spelled it out pretty clearly. Some people felt others' opinions were insensitive and in poor taste. It was handled the only fair way it could be. I understand that.
@Ross
Sorry about spelling your name wrong earlier, I have a good friend Russ and that name spilled off my fingers by accident. I know you don't care, but accuracy is important to me.
@Kawf
What are you talking about? One example would help your claim a little. You clearly have some posts in mind, so share. Blanket statements not backed by examples are not fact, either. Hypocrite.
Also, to suggest that a press release from a company is the only way to get news, shows that you know nothing of news gathering. Only a tool lets the company dictate what is news and when it can be reported.
And as far as Konami's actions; if they didn't want that game title leaked yet, they should have done a better job hiding it. E3 is FULL of journalists trying to get a scoop. They know that. They made a mistake. That's not Joystiq's fault. Konami acted unprofessionally.
The bottom line; the REAL way for blog sites to be taken seriously as journalists is for people like you to stop publicly accusing them of being biased or inaccurate without solid examples.
vc @ May 30th 2006 5:12AM
"If a comment is on-topic and spurs conversation, wouldn't it be additive?"
I can think of many comments we've deleted that meet this. Most troll comments are designed to elicit an emotional reaction. They're (a) on topic and (b) create conversation, but they're unhealthy. Not a week goes by when we don't ban someone for being a troll.
For example, in one of our posts on racism in WoW, we had a commenter who insisted on dragging negative racial stereotypes about black people into the conversation. He was a crafty troll, always careful to tie his points to the discussion, but he was an outright racist. Homophobia and other forms of hate tend to get nuked as quickly.
KawF @ May 30th 2006 6:03AM
@cringer8
What i'm talking about specifically in regars to the first section of your reply is the latest round of PS3 speculations that have been reported here and all over the place. Just by doing such a simple thing as actually reading the pressreleases, one would have found out, that it was nothing but idle speculation based on non-facts. Take such things as the controller. Sony hasn't even announced that they will be producing any way, shape, or form of wired controller. Everyone just assumed it would be since it recharges through a Mini-usb plug.
Another case would be the recent "Sony won't allow you to resell PS3 games" regurgitated rumor. Another case where it could have been stopped before being reported as news and facts.
And I am not saying that pressreleases are the only source of information, but specualtion such as previously mentioned could have EASILY have been avoided by actually doing just a tiny bit of fact-checking first. At least it would have allowed one to mark the information as just what it is: speculation and not news. There's a big difference.
And in regards to the Konami issue, as I said, Konami wanted to keep it secret, many people probably had invested quite a bit of effort in doing so. By publishing this bit of information, of course people there will be upset, and of course they might get reluctant to be nice to an entity which decides to not cooperate with them. It is not a godgiven right to bloggers or journalists to publish information and not being treated badly for such if it was undesired by the affectd entity, in this case Konami.
Just as you might not want to give out an informants name to protect them or to make them more willing to come back with more secrets later, you could choose to cooperate with an entity such as Konami in order to get on their good side.
The tables might be turned around, and you might not care if Konami likes you or not, if they are coming to you for publicity, but what do you really expect from them when this happens? That they ignore that you haven't played ball with them? For what? Your god given rights to be assholes of the internet?
In the real world, that doesn't work. In the real world, any relationship is a give and take situation. Be nice to once, and they just might come out and give you a treat or two later on. I can't understand why people have such difficulty in understanding this.
Burning bridges and treating your industry connections badly is just crazy. To repeat, just as you don't want do disclose an informants name in order to get more secrets from him or her, you might want to choose to play ball with a company in order to get on their good side.
It's your choice. Give and take, remember that, that's how any relationship works.
ill trooper @ May 30th 2006 6:50AM
I feel anyone who subscribes to the ethics of good journalism (which would be a) fair presentation of the facts, and b) confirming information from two independant sources) deserves this protection.
However, that can also take the timeliness and fun out of a blog - waiting for confirmation of a rumor, or being unable to joke about how expensive something is going to be can make for a pretty dull read. Blogs are often opinion, but can also be as fact-worthy as the New York Times. was. before Jayson Blair... But anyway...
Like with all media outlets, as long as you're also willing to recognize when you're putting together an 'op-ed' piece, or if you're willing to respect the rules of slander and libel, then these First Amendment rights should always be extended to journalists.
Now let's just move on to getting the internet to focus on better spelling!
bazza @ May 30th 2006 7:45AM
All i can say is "can of worms" "pandora's box"
Good luck!
C. Grant @ May 30th 2006 9:29AM
KawF:
I'm sort of giggling that you chose those two examples since those two -- specifically -- do exactly what you wanted and both originated from another site (tip: use links to the posts to reinforce your points).
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/05/14/clearing-up-some-ps3-confusion/
The first post I titled "Clearing up some PS3 confusion" in which I wrote, "Sony's press release (.doc) clearly states that both models will ship with "Wireless controller (Bluetooth)" so, until Sony issues an official statement saying otherwise, we're going to disregard this rumor." Just to make my point even more clear, I linked to the press release. You're right, sometimes fact checking does help!
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/05/24/rumor-no-pre-owned-games-for-ps3/
The second post is titled "Rumor: no pre-owned games for PS3?" in which I wrote, "Considering the dubious origin of the rumor -- "retail sources" -- and GamesRadar's past inaccuracy, it's far too early to get upset over this one." This was inaccurately referred to (by most people) as an old rumor when, really, it was a mutated strain of an old rumor, resurrected with some new twists.
Point is, we're quick to point out rumors as such (like putting it in our headline) and even then, we'll do our best to explain why it is or isn't likely. I would suggest you put some more effort into future criticisms; while we are receptive to legitimate ones, we're frustrated with these sort of vaguities.
As for Konami: sure, it was their right to keep us from their press conference. If that was the whole story, that would be fine. What upset us is when they wanted the post to be removed in exchange for access. That was an inappropriate request that we refused as such. We're more interested in giving our readers interesting content than we are in preserving precious industry connections ... that's what the big gaming-mags are for (snap!).
This "asshole of the internet" is going to return to his regularly scheduled diet of regurgitated press releases and rumors spun as fact. kthxbye!
cringer8 @ May 30th 2006 10:58AM
@VC
Touché. Racist trolls are bad. Keep deleting.
@C. Grant
Well said. When I read Kawf's two examples, I was all set to write exactly what you did...good thing I kept reading as to avoid a double-up.
I love you guys. I thought intelligent debate was a thing of the past on the internet. :)
KawF @ May 30th 2006 12:13PM
@cringer8 & @C. Grant
"And as far as Konami's actions; if they didn't want that game title leaked yet, they should have done a better job hiding it." - cringer8
That stamtment there is what made me react so heavily, and I apologise for it C. Grant, but when I see things like that, my head spins around a few times and the demon comes out and makes me say evil things.
In my fury, I might have mistaken Joystiq for Engadget, where I found this:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/14/lower-end-ps3-to-ship-with-wired-controllers-non-upgradeable-hd/
Which if my memory serves me right, did not imply at all that it was a rumor which could be debunked by looking at the pressrelease, as can be seen by the following comments up until the update.
I've been trying to find the other articles but I'm not having much luch with the search engine here since I get irrelevant results for even the most refined searches I try.
I must admit to being a asshole of the internet, that's undeniable. I get quite heavy on my insults at times and some of the things I say, even if not direct insults may be very direct and to the point. I like directness.
But when I see people assuming for some reason that they want basically special treatment and no responsibility for what they do, I react. In my opinion at least, it was not "an inappropriate request" by Konami. It's perhaps a bit petty of them to deny you access to their press event in exchange for you not following their request, but as you agree, it was totally within their right to deny you it. I can't remember there being a clause in any ammendment to any constitution that says: "And henceforth all companies must be totally fair to all other persons and other companies, no matter what is said or done to them". By not "playing ball" with Konami you chose that seat for yourselves, a seat where you found that perhaps it could have been nice to have come to some agreement with them.
I won't claim to know that I have the full insder background to the story, but I would like to think at least that perhaps some type of agreement could have been reached where you pull the post in exchange for some juicy tidbit of information, or a mutual agreement of being "first to the presses" with the story when a time had come that they and you could have felt comfortable with. Perhaps it wouldn't have been such a "large scoop" then, but at least you could have been on the friendly side of Konami. I do not know what your relationship with them is like now, but even if your primary goal is to provide your readers with "interesting" content, never underestimate the value of connections.
I once thought that connections are to be sneered at, but I have discovered that they are a very valuable asset, at least in my daily slave labor in the code-mines.
And even if this site is not a big gaming mag, wouldn't it be nice to have such connections that you can get some good insider information that can be published in a fashion that it does not tick off the source?
At least that is what I assume would be benneficial to you in the long run.
And yes, many articles here are very leveled and do unlike many other sites, often state that posts that are rumors are in fact rumors. It would be very nice if this could be clearly marked as what it is, a rumor, because I think that many tend to read into articles what they want unless it is clear that they should not.
That is unless every post here and on the sister-sites should be regarded as speculation and rumors until seen in a "big gaming-mag".