|
I. 簡介
Are bloggers journalists?部落客是記者？
Does it matter?有關係嗎？
The question has become ripe in recent months in view of the
scandals involving leaks of government secrets and the resulting renewed
focus on whether journalists can be forced to disclose confidential sources
and other newsgathering material.鑑於涉及洩漏政府機密的醜聞和由此產生新聞記者是否可以被強制揭露機密來源和其他新聞採訪的材料的重新關注，這個問題在最近幾個月變得更成熟。The legal status of bloggers is
among the more controversial questions in connection with defining who is,
and who is not, a journalist.部落客的法律地位，與定義誰是、而誰不是記者，是較具爭議的問題之一。From a strict legal point of
view, the fulcrum of the question is what rights and privileges are afforded
to journalists that may or may not encompass publication by bloggers.但從嚴格的法律角度來看，問題的支點是給予記者什麼樣的權利和特權可能會或可能不會包含部落客發表。No single legal right is so the
“reporter's privilege”.沒有單一的法律權利如此依賴於新聞記者的狀態及定義，而能如“記者的特權”。
In a notable recent New Jersey decision, a Superior Court judge
ruled that a blogger acting as a journalist was protected by that state's
journalist's shield law.最近在一件有名的新澤西州的判決中，高等法院法官裁定，作為記者的部落客受到該州的新聞記者保護法保護。That law provides, in relevant
part, as follows:該法律的相關部分規定如下：
[A] person engaged on, engaged in,
connected with, or employed by news media for the purpose of gathering,
procuring, transmitting, compiling, editing or disseminating news for the
general public or on whose behalf new is so gathered, procured, transmitted,
compiled, edited or disseminated has a privilege to refuse to disclose, in
any legal or quasilegal proceeding or before any investigative body,
including, but not limited to, any court, garnd jury, petit jury,
administrative agency, the Legislature or legislative committee, or
elsewhere… “為了廣大民眾而收集、採購、傳播、編譯、編輯或發佈新聞的目的，或為代表他們而收集、採購、傳播、編譯、編輯或播散新聞而從事、有關於、或受僱於新聞媒體的人，在任何法律或準法律程序中或任何調查機構之前，包括但不限於，任何法院、陪審團、小陪審團、行政機關、立法機關和立法委員會，或其他地方... ，有拒絕揭露的特權。
aa.a“News media” means newspapers, magazines, press
associations, new agencies, wire services, radio, television or other similar
printed, photographic, mechanical or electronic means of disseminating news
to the general public.a. “新聞媒體”是指將新聞傳播給公眾的報紙、雜誌、新聞協會、新聞機構、通訊社、有線服務電台、電視台或其他類似的印刷、攝影、機械或電子手段。”
Interpreting this statute and a number of appellate decisions
that had analyzed its application to online publications, the court found
that while Internet message boards do not qualify for protection under New
Jersey's shield law, under the circumstances presented a blog could and, in
that case, did qualify.解讀本法令和已分析及其應用至線上出版物的許多上訴判決，法院認為，雖然網際網路留言板不適用於新澤西州保護法的保護，在這種情況下提出部落格可能而且，在這種情況下，確實符合資格。The court based this conclusion
on its findings that (notwithstanding its uneven quality) (i) the blog
provided the pubic with reporting relating to Union County governance and
politics not covered, or not covered as thoroughly, by traditional media, and
(ii)notwithstanding the blogger's lack of affiliation with a recognized
traditional news outlet, her reporting involving recognized journalistic
information-gathering techniques, constituting a sufficient “connection to
the news media” as contemplated by the statute.法院的此一結論是根據其以下發現（儘管它的質量參差不齊）（i）提供大眾有關聯合縣治理和政治的報導的部落格不被傳統媒體涵蓋，或沒有完全被涵蓋，以及（ii）儘管部落客缺乏與公認的傳統新聞媒體的聯繫，她的涉及公認的新聞信息收集技術的報導，構成了一個如法規所設想的足夠的“與新聞媒體的連接”。The court also found support for the conclusion that the blogger's
activities were “similar” to the enumerated news outlets in the evidence that
her blog disseminated news and has “wire readership” of 500-600 unique user
per day.法院還發現，部落客的活動 “類似於” 所列舉的新聞媒體的結論，在她的部落格傳播新聞且每天有500-600個獨特的使用者的“廣大讀者”的證據中得到支持。鑑於Given that the information she sought to protect from
disclosure under the shield law was itself information gathered in connection
with these protected activities, the New Jersey statute.她在保護法下尋求保護免於揭露的資訊本身就是與這些受保護的活動有關而被收集的資訊，法院認為她以部落格為基礎的報導受到新澤西法規的保護。
|