NY Shield Law Extended to Bloggers?

The NY Times City Blog reports on a bill introduced by Democratic state senators Thomas Duane and Linda Rosenthal that would extend the state shield law for journalists to include "journalist bloggers." The current shield law protects journalists from having to disclose confidential sources or information in state court. S8746 proposes to amend Civil Rights Law 79-h to include those who write a web log in the definition of a professional journalist, and adds a new section defining the term web log:

"Web log" shall mean a website or webpage that contains an online journal containing news, comments and offers hyperlinks provided by the professional journalist or newscaster.

Blogger Insurance

Today's Wall Street Journal has an article about bloggers' liability entitled Bloggers, Beware: What You Write Can Get You Sued . The article discusses the case of Shellee Hale, from Bellevue Washington, who was sued for comments she made in "chat-room posts." The article also includes information about insurance coverage options for bloggers.

Can Supreme Court Be Influenced By Blogging?

Social Media Law Student blog has a nice post titled "Can Blogs Influence the Supreme Court?" by Josh Camson. In this post, Josh reviews an article by Stanford Law student, Rachel C. Lee, titled Ex Parte Blogging: The Legal Ethics of Supreme Court Advocacy in the Internet Era.

Lawyers have been arguing their cases before the Supreme Court for over two centuries, while the phenomenon of legal blogs is perhaps a decade old. Yet legal blogs cannot be dismissed as merely a sideshow novelty—they are already capable of having a substantial impact on Supreme Court litigation.

Rachel based her argument on the 2008 decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 1, 171 L.Ed. 2d 932 (2008) and continues on saying that events surrounding this decision ...

[d]emonstrate that blogs can both highlight errors in Court decisions and generate new arguments relevant to ongoing litigation. In addition, legal blogs create the opportunity for Supreme Court advocates to engage in ex parte blogging—posting persuasive material about a pending case in the hopes of directly influencing the Court’s decisions.

Attorneys for parties and amici in cases before the Court already sometimes post arguments online about their cases shortly after oral argument—potentially a crucial time in the Court’s decision-making process—and evidence suggests that the Justices and their clerks may well encounter some of these posts online. Yet no one has analyzed the ethical implications of this practice, or what its effects might be on different groups appearing before the Court. This Note examines the relationship between ex parte blogging and the traditional concepts of prejudicial publicity and ex parte communications.

Any thoughts? Feel free to share!