Now, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, based here in San Francisco, apparently agrees. In a ruling that hasn’t attracted the attention it should, they threw out most of a lawsuit against a blogger, Crystal Cox, who had been sued for defamation by a investment consulting company, Obsidian Finance Group, after Cox accused them of “fraud, corruption and other misconduct” on her blog, CrystalCox.com.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a7296/a72967d4ee4967f3a5542b9dd2fa1d29b27dd57d" alt=""
That stance is what the Court of Appeals agreed with. The Court determined that “The protections of the 1st Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities.”
No one disagreed that Cox’s blog postings were, in the Los Angeles Times’ words, “rants [to the] extreme.” Rather, the Court ruled that, since Cox did not act with “actual malice,” she had the right to express herself.
I have no idea if Cox is correct or not; that’s not the point. But journalists and First Amendment defenders no doubt will celebrate this ruling. I do; I would not want to see a blogger self-censor herself, out of fear of being sued by a big, wealthy, bullying corporation. But this case does raise troubling questions."
Source
http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2014/01/21/on-blogging-incorrect-claims-and-the-constitution/
Note: Trust No Blog nor Newspaper, read what they have to say, click on any documents and do your homework, think for yourself. It is not about who is more credible or who has an Editor to suppress them. It is about what is the TRUTH, with documents. Not just calling both sides and getting a double dose of hearsay. Crystal Cox brought over 500 pages of the source of that ONE blog post and Judge Marco Hernandez threw it out.