A "STUNNINGLY ROBUST" Protection of Free Speech.

"I take issue with Gajda’s interpretation of much of the case law cited in The First Amendment Bubble. She reports, for example that a federal court “decided in 2011 that a blogger’s posts involving a bankruptcy trustee . . . were not of public concern because there was no evidence that the public had paid any attention to the private company’s collapse.” Obsidian Finance v. Cox is a complex case, but she fails to note that the Ninth Circuit eventually found that the blog posts did address “a matter of public concern.”

To my eyes, the ruling is a 

stunningly robust protection of speech. 

Elsewhere, she argues that “some judges” are suggesting that “accidents are not newsworthy”; her evidence is DeSirey v. Unique Vacations—a case about a dune buggy accident in which American press freedoms were not remotely involved. The defendants wanted a trial in St. Lucia, where the accident occurred. They argued that tourism was of “public interest” to the island resort’s press. The judge held that “this relatively straightforward tort suit does not automatically become of broad public interest in St. Lucia merely because it involves the tourism industry.”

Read the Whole Story At:
http://www.cjr.org/review/how_the_first_amendment_applie.php?page=all&print=true#sthash.MEVDRQqf.dpuf

Plus Folks Please note that a Bankruptcy Court Proceeding is a Public Issue, as are 1031 Exchange Companies, DIG DEEP.