With the proliferation of the internet, social media and smartphone cameras, more and more people are turning citizen journalists and there are obvious concerns about their safety too.
A new study based on two US Supreme Court cases has, however, revealed that these citizen journalists have the same legal cover as seasoned scribes.
"Anyone can be a journalist and they do not need an affiliation with an established outlet," said William E Lee, professor of journalism in University of Georgia's Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication.
"It is increasingly important that unaffiliated journalists know they have the same legal protection as a reporter at a newspaper," he said.
"It is significant for the development of alternative forms of expression that do not fit neatly in our traditional concepts of speech or press."
Also Read
The new article, detailing the relationship of two US Supreme Court cases and how they work together to uphold freedom of expression, has been published in the journal Georgia Law Review.
Lee's article focuses on New York Times v. Sullivan and its companion case, Abernathy v. Sullivan, in which the court upheld the First Amendment rights of both the press and ministers active in the civil rights movement.
These rulings affect today's citizen journalists too.
Lee's article explains why the Supreme Court ultimately blended the two cases together and ruled in favour of the New York Times and the four ministers on First Amendment grounds.
"It is important to understand that by blending the Abernathy and Times cases, the court was holding that both the ministers and the press had equal First Amendment protection," Lee maintained.
The relationship segues to today's citizen journalists who are expanding the definition of journalists.
The article also focuses on how judges today struggle with defining the rights of citizen journalists.
"Judges have tried to define the press and the results have often not been pretty," Lee added.
