William Peacock thinks Crystal Cox is CORRUPT, or is he simply pointing out the injustices done to Crystal Cox who he says KNOWS the Law better then the Judge? Well either way, it is NOW his First Amendment Right to publish this false statement should they be false, courtesy of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox's Landmark Ruling for ALL bloggers, citizen journalists and whistle blowers to EXPOSE jackasses such as William Peacock.
Ahh I am just flippin' Mr. Peacock some SHIT, other then the implication that I am a Corrupt Blogger, this is some pretty good stuff overall. And I do like how Corrupt Ones turns into "allegedly corrupt". :)
""As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable."
That's the money quote from Judge Andrew Hurwitz's opinion for the Ninth Circuit panel, which held that bloggers enjoy the same free speech protections as traditional journalists, and under Gertz v. Welch, cannot be liable for defamation absent proof of negligence regarding the truth of the allegedly defamatory material.
That's true even if, as the court explicitly noted, the blogger "apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoff in exchange for retraction."
What takes Crystal Cox's case from interesting to fascinating is the blogger herself.
Cox will argue that she fights corruption online via her various blogs, and that she is only guilty of unearthing and publicizing the truth about the plaintiffs, Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group."
YOU betcha Crystal Cox is Exposing Corruption, nearly a decade now and still going. William Peacock may not have what it takes to actually dig up the truth, nor have any desire to do so. Oh well Believe what you must, the TRUTH remains to Be the TRUTH regardless of what One Believes. ~ Crystal Cox
A New York Times article, cited by the Ninth Circuit, would beg to differ.
TheTimes' David Carr weaves a tale of a corrupt woman, with major SEO skills and hundreds of domains at her disposal, who launches character assassinations online.
Cox claims that Padrick and Obsidian were involved in bribery, tax fraud, money laundering, payoffs, theft, and more.
And yes David Carr does weave a TALE of CORRUPTION. And a darn tootin' good one too. Some may even call it "DEFAMATION", or Slander.
And YES this is a flat out defamatory LIE. And yes David Carr and the New York Times is protected to lie about whoever they want and this CAN and WILL be used against you in a court of law, whether it is TRUE or Not. Oh and David Carr HAD actual malice as he interviewed Crystal Cox and he knew where to find the FACTS. David Carr of the New York Times decided he would "paint Crystal Cox in false light" as to make ALL whistle blowers, anti-corruption bloggers and citizen blogger the collateral damage of his KNOWINGLY posting false and defamatory statement to a third party regarding Crystal Cox.
No worries, David Carr and the New York TIMES are protected to flat out lie about whom ever they want to and they are above the Law and have NO Liability.
UCLA Constitutional Law Professor, Lawyer Eugene Volokh's Motion to Rehear / To Redact Extortion Allegations from Ninth Circuit Ruling, Click Below