Are bloggers entitled to journalist privileges?

FERGAL7

Hi guys,

Currently trying to find out whether a blogger who puts up defamatory posts is entitled to the same protections as a journalist would be. The key thing is whether ECtHR jurisprudence has defined a broad meaning on the term "Journalist which encompasses small time bloggers but I can't for the life of me find anything of that nature. any help would be much appreciated.

Best,
Fergal.

Grolschevik

What protections do you think a journalist has against actions for publishing defamatory statements?

FERGAL7

If the publication is a matter of public interest, non-disclosure of sources for the protection of freedom of expression under the ECHR Article 10.

Little CuChulainn

FERGAL7 wrote: »

If the publication is a matter of public interest, non-disclosure of sources for the protection of freedom of expression under the ECHR Article 10.

You understand that something is not defamatory if it is true don't you?

FERGAL7

Yes I do sir. I am not asking for a definition of defamation or a lesson on the tort of defamation. I am aware of the many defenses to the tort such as Truth,
Absolute Privilege, Qualified Privilege, Honest Opinion etc and am fully enlightened as to their operation.

I am merely asking if anyone is aware of any cases where the European Court of Human Rights have deliberated over whether a blogger fits within the definition of a journalist when a defamation suit is brought against them.

I hope that clarifies matters, thank you.

conorh91

In circumstances where a defence of fair and reasonable publication is concerned, it is at least arguable that there are higher standards expected of the established media. But that would be a matter for the court/ the jury.

Other than that I can't think of any difference.

FERGAL7 wrote: »

If the publication is a matter of public interest, non-disclosure of sources for the protection of freedom of expression under the ECHR Article 10.

Yes. I cannot remember if it pertains only to a constitutional right, or an ECHR right, or both, but Cornec v Morrice concerned a person who was not strictly-speaking a journalist, and the High Court said that the protection of sources was afforded to people performing a role analagous to a journalist, such as a blogger.

edit: it's a constitutional right, contained in Article 40.6.1. ECHR jurisprudence may differ. But the Constitution gets first dibs.

FERGAL7

conorh91 wrote: »

In circumstances where a defence of fair and reasonable publication is concerned, it is at least arguable that there are higher standards expected of the established media. But that would be a matter for the court/ the jury.

Other than that I can't think of any difference.

Yes. Cornec v Morrice concerned a person who was not strictly-speaking a journalist, and the High Court said that the protection was afforded to people performing a role analagous to a journalist, such as a blogger.

Thank you so much that's very helpful. Much appreciated!