Solidly good news for all concerned and not remotely surprising, as others have commented there's never been an apparent appetite by the Supreme to distinguish

Solidly good news for all concerned and not remotely surprising, as others have commented there's never been an apparent appetite by the Supreme to distinguish Institutional vs other speakers in treatment of first amendment rights. Amusingly I think the article title completely misses the point - bloggers are not journalists because being a journalist doesn't afford any special protection. May as well say journalists are bloggers. I do wonder if there needs to be a conversation about reach or dissemination potential of published comments for both private and public individuals. Certainly rumour and speculation can be hugely damaging for both personal and private individuals when spread to a sufficiently large audience. Malice could be a very grey area when, with a sizable audience, speculation still wounds. I don't know if this is taken into consideration by courts following Sullivan and Gertz?