Westwood Man Isn't Journalist, Court Rules

A Westwood man who created an online "gripe site" about a Rutgers administrator is not protected by journalist shield laws, appeals court judges decided last week.

According to the court's published opinion, Amy Wollock contacted police in 2007 about the website amywollock.com, which reportedly stated its creator had "a gripe" with her from his time as a student at Rutgers, where she is an associate dean. It also included a countdown of days "until the fun begins," under a photo of her, but did not specify what that meant.

Police tracked the IP address to determine that Joseph Oettinger III, a current Westwood resident, had created the website. He was found guilty of harassment in February 2009, then appealed and was found not guilty later that year before Wollock discovered another website which displayed her personal information.

Police also tracked that site's creation to Oettinger and executed a search warrant at his home the following November, seizing computers and other equipment.

Oettinger later filed a motion to suppress the evidence, claiming he should be protected by the state Subpoena First Act because "[he] told [police] that [he] had websites. So they were on notice that ] was an internet publisher. [He doesn't] have to be a journalist under the statute. [He] could be a publisher of news and information."

The court disagreed, finding that "plaintiff has never been employed as a journalist by any conventional news outlet. He argues that he is protected by the Act because he considers himself 'a legitimate gatherer and publisher of news and information for the public.' It is clear, however, that a person does not become free from searches and seizures' under the Act solely by virtue of a claimed newsperson status."

The judges noted that the Internet has made it more common for people to report news outside of traditional newsrooms, but that the newsworthiness of the material should be considered when determining whether or not a person counts as a journalist.

"Today, a cellphone can be used by a pedestrian to take a video of an incident of police brutality that will be played on the evening news broadcast. The same phone can be used to record a kitten who refuses to leave a warm bath, producing a video seen by close to four million people on YouTube," the judges wrote. "In each case, it could be argued that the person who took the video engaged in an activity described in the Act. Nonetheless, we are confident that the Legislature did not intend to provide protection above and beyond that provided by the Fourth Amendment to someone based upon the posting of a video of a wet kitten on the Internet."