" Blurred Lines: Ninth Circuit Applies Same First Amendment Protections to Bloggers as Traditional Media"

"01.23.14

By Jim Rosenfeld, Ambika K. Doran and Jeremy A. Chase

The Ninth Circuit last week became the first federal court of appeals to find that bloggers are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as traditional print and broadcast media when sued for defamation. Obsidian Fin. Grp. v. Cox, -- F.3d --, 2014 WL 185376 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2014). The court also delivered a victory to online publishers by recognizing that their use of informal and hyperbolic language reduces their exposure to libel claims because such language is often protected opinion. "

"Ruling on pre- and post-trial motions, the district court found that Padrick and Obsidian were not required to offer proof of fault—whether negligence or actual malice—nor actual damages to establish liability against Cox because Cox failed to submit “evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist,” Obsidian Fin. Grp., LLC v. Cox, No. 3:11-cv-00057-HZ, 2011 WL 5999334, at *5 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2011); Padrick and Obsidian were not public figures; and the blog post did not refer to a matter of public concern. Obsidian Fin. Grp., LLC v. Cox, No. 3:11-cv-00057-HZ, 2012 WL 1065484, at *4 -7 (D. Or. Mar. 27, 2012). Cox appealed, and Plaintiffs cross-appealed from the district court’s dismissal of the remaining blog posts."

"Obsidian is a major win for individuals who blog, share, tweet and otherwise publish their views online.

While the Court initially framed the question as “What First Amendment protections are afforded a blogger sued for defamation?” (emphasis added), its decision applies the First Amendment protections it has bestowed on “institutional media” to all “individual speakers” or “other speakers.” The Court stated that the applicability of such protections does not turn on “whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story.” Under this reasoning, an individual blogger, website operator or social media users speaking publicly on the Internet enjoys the same First Amendment protections from defamation claims as traditional media publishers.

At the same time, the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims as to most of Cox’s statements continues a judicial trend of taking the context and atmosphere of the Internet into account in distinguishing opinions from factual statements. "

" It is imperative that courts learn to view libel allegations within the unique context of the Internet.”) (quoting Sandals, 86 A.D.3d at 44)"

Source of Above Quotes on Obsidian v. Cox Case and full article"

http://www.dwt.com/Blurred-Lines-Ninth-Circuit-Applies-Same-First-Amendment-Protections-to-Bloggers-as-Traditional-Media-01-23-2014/

"Did you know that if you're a blogger and someone tries chill your speech with defamation law, your rights are protected by the First Amendment? "

"Did you know that if you're a blogger and someone tries chill your speech with defamation law, your rights are protected by the First Amendment? Considering the flurry of litigation, specifically the whole "blogger vs. real journalist" legal debate, one might be well inclined to believe that bloggers live in an anti-constitutional bubble, where the rights, privileges and immunities granted to every other believer in the First Amendment bounces off this imaginary bubble like water of a ducks back. But there's good news from the 9th circuit Court of Appeals.

Blogger Crystal Cox

Thus begins our story of Ms. Crystal Cox, Internet blogger who posted articles on her now defunct bankruptcycorruption.com blog, accusing two bankruptcy officers "of fraud, corruption, money-laundering, and other illegal activities in connection with the Summit bankruptcy." At the district court level, Cox actually did well for representing herself. All but one of her blog posts in contention were found to be protected as they merely contained hyperbolic speech. But the one article at issue here was different, as it "fairly specific allegations[that] a reasonable reader could understand . . . to imply a provable fact assertion" about the officer's alleged failure to pay taxes. The story that follows is familiar - a demand to remove the articles was refused by Cox and litigation ensued in Obsidian Financial Group v. Cox.

One of the major issues of this case is dealing with the level of scrutiny the court will apply to Cox's speech. In other words, what do the plaintiffs (Obsidian) have to prove in order to win a defamation suit against Ms. Cox? The court has two landmark cases to sort through, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch. The Times case gives us the rule for defamation involving public officials, while Gertz gives us the rule for defamation involving private individuals. Gertz offers slightly less protection, but ultimately, both cases give strong First Amendment protections, no matter who you are."

Source and Full Article
http://www.slyck.com/story2272_Court_of_Appeals_Reconfirms_that_Bloggers_have_First_Amendment_Rights

"9th Circuit: First Amendment media protections apply to bloggers, too"

".. a case involving a blogger crusading against what she saw as fraud in a bankruptcy-counseling firm, a judge ruled that the plaintiffs in the libel suit did not have to prove malice to win punitive damages."

"Should bloggers have the same legal protection as other media outlets? One might think that the lack of a requirement for credentialing in the First Amendment would mean yes, but a federal district court disagreed in 2011. In a case involving a blogger crusading against what she saw as fraud in a bankruptcy-counseling firm, a judge ruled that the plaintiffs in the libel suit did not have to prove malice to win punitive damages. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuitunanimously overruled that decision:

A federal appellate court ruled Friday that the author of a blog post deserves the same treatment in a defamation case as “institutional media.”

The three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held unanimously that there is no difference between a journalist for a media outlet and another speaker when it comes to First Amendment protections. …

“The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable,” Hurwitz wrote.

The subject of Cox’s blog posts were a matter of public concern, the court held, so in order to prove defamation, the plaintiffs would have to show she acted with negligence or malice in making false statements against them.

Eugene Volokh, who argued for the blogger in the appeal, notes the victory (viaInstapundit):

I think that’s right, not just as a matter of First Amendment principle but also as a matter of history and precedent (as I documented at length in Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or for the Press as a Technology? From the Framing to Today, 160 U. Pa. L. Rev. 459 (2012)). The specific legal issue that the Ninth Circuit was confronting in this passage, by the way, is whether all who speak to the public are equally protected by the Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. rules, which are that

1. libel plaintiffs suing over statements on matters of public concern must prove that the defendant was negligent about the falsity of the statement, and

2. libel plaintiffs suing over statements on matters of public concern and seeking presumed or punitive damages (as opposed to identifiable compensatory damages) must prove that the defendant knew that the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the possibility that it was false.

Well, of course he’s right, although it was disturbing to see a district court get this so wrong. The media protections that have developed by legal precedent under the First Amendmentmust apply equally, as does the First Amendment itself. In fact, the media protections should probably apply equally to all speakers, and not just those who publish their works via paper, broadcast, or the Internet. One can make the argument that the media has to put itself in a more vulnerable position in order to function as communication sources and therefore should have more leeway, but that applies to bloggers at the very least as well as newspapers and television news outlets. It might apply even more, since bloggers are much less apt to have legal resources readily available and are much more vulnerable to intimidation."

Source and Full Article
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/18/9th-circuit-first-amendment-media-protections-apply-to-bloggers-too/

"Bloggers get the same libel protection as traditional journalists, federal court rules"

"What’s the difference between a blogger and a journalist? Congress is still debating that question, but today a federal appeals court ruled that there’s no difference when it comes to defamation.

In 2011, blogger Crystal Cox lost a trial when an Oregon judge denied her a First Amendment protection traditionally reserved for the press. She claimed that Obsidian Finance Group was guilty of tax fraud — a statement with no basis in fact — and a jury awarded Obsidian $2.5 million in damages. Normally, Obsidan would have had to prove that Cox was negligent to recover some of that money, and that she acted with “actual malice” to get the rest. However, those rules came from Supreme Court cases that only applied to journalists — cases that predated blogging — and the Oregon judge decided she didn’t have the credentials of a journalist.

Today, however, the appeals court decided it doesn’t matter whether Cox is part of the traditional press. Wrote Judge Marco Hernandez:

“The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable.”

“In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue — not the identity of the speaker — provide the First Amendment touchstones,” added the judge.

Source
http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/bloggers-get-the-same-libel-protection-as-traditional-journalists-federal-court-rules/

Obsidian v. Cox, Crystal Cox Case; "Court of Appeals says bloggers may enjoy same free speech protections as journalists"

"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled today that a blogger should enjoy the same free speech protections as a journalist, and ruled that the blogger, Crystal Cox, deserved a retrial on her defamation case.

“As the Supreme Court has accurately warned,” the court said, “a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: ‘With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media . . . the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred,’” said the court, citing the Citizens United case (PDF).

“Because Cox’s blog post addressed a matter of public concern… the district court should have instructed the jury that it could not find Cox liable for defamation unless it found that she acted negligently.”

The case at the center of the ruling involved the blogger Crystal Cox who wrote accusing a bankruptcy trustee and Obsidian Finance Group of tax fraud. A lower court ruled that because Cox failed to provide evidence that she was a journalist that she was not protected in the same way a reporter would be – that is, the person would have to prove that the author knowingly knew the information was false when it was published."

Source
http://www.talkingnewmedia.com/2014/01/17/court-of-appeals-says-bloggers-may-enjoy-same-free-speech-protections-as-journalists/

Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox; Crystal Cox Case; "Blogger gets same speech protections as traditional press: U.S. court"

"SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless she acted negligently, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.

Crystal Cox lost a defamation trial in 2011 over a blog post she wrote accusing a bankruptcy trustee and Obsidian Finance Group of tax fraud. A lower court judge had found that Obsidian did not have to prove that Cox acted negligently because Cox failed to submit evidence of her status as a journalist.

But in the ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Cox deserved a new trial, regardless of the fact that she is not a traditional reporter.

"As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable," 9th Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.

Steven Wilker, an attorney for Obsidian and the trustee, pointed out the 9th Circuit still concluded that there was no dispute that Cox's post was false.

"Ms. Cox's false and defamatory statements have caused substantial damage to our clients, and we are evaluating our options with respect to the court's decision," Wilker wrote in an email.

Eugene Volokh, a UCLA School of Law professor who represented Cox, said Obsidian would now have to show that Cox had actual knowledge that her post was false when she published it."

Source
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-blogger-ruling-20140117,0,7794290.story

Crystal Cox Case; "US appeals court rules bloggers, public have same First Amendment protection as journalists"

"It's not a special right to the news media," he said.

 "So it's a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others."

"Though Cox acted as her own attorney, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who had written an article on the issue, learned of her case and offered to represent her in an appeal. Volokh said
such cases usually end up settled without trial, and it was rare for one to reach the federal appeals court level.

"It makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists," he said. "There had been similar precedents before concerning advocacy groups, other writers and book authors. This follows a fairly well established chain of precedents. I believe it is the first federal appeals court level ruling that applies to bloggers."

Source
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/240917881.html

"Bloggers = Media for First Amendment Libel Law Purposes". Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Appeals Case

"So holds today’s Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2014) (in which I represented the defendant). To be precise, the Ninth Circuit concludes that all who speak to the public, whether or not they are members of the institutional press, are equally protected by the First Amendment. To quote the court,

The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media … the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue — not the identity of the speaker — provide the First Amendment touchstones.

I think that’s right, not just as a matter of First Amendment principle but also as a matter of history and precedent (as I documented at length in Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or for the Press as a Technology? From the Framing to Today, 160 U. Pa. L. Rev. 459 (2012)). The specific legal issue that the Ninth Circuit was confronting in this passage, by the way, is whether all who speak to the public are equally protected by the Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.rules, which are that

1. libel plaintiffs suing over statements on matters of public concern must prove that the defendant was negligent about the falsity of the statement, and
2. libel plaintiffs suing over statements on matters of public concern and seeking presumed or punitive damages (as opposed to identifiable compensatory damages) must prove that the defendant knew that the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the possibility that it was false.

But the court’s reasoning reaches the First Amendment more broadly, and correctly so (again, see the Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or for the Press as a Technology? article, which sets out the historical evidence). Note, though, that the court’s reasoning is limited to First Amendment protections; it doesn’t discuss state or federal statutes that provide extra protection to the “media” or to other subsets of speakers."

Source

http://www.volokh.com/2014/01/17/bloggers-media-first-amendment-libel-law-purposes/

Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit; "Bloggers have rights, too: Column"

"A website that castigates others as "evil doers" and "thugs" has exactly the same First Amendment protection as USA TODAY and The New York Times— and that's a good thing.

In a landmark decision on Friday, a federal appellate court held for the first time that blogs enjoy the same First Amendment protection from libel suits as traditional news media.

At issue were the blog posts of Crystal Cox, who accused Bend, Ore., attorney Kevin Padrick and his firm Obsidian Finance Group of misconduct in connection with his role as a trustee in a bankruptcy case. A jury awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages.

But the U.S Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit saw things differently, deciding that Cox's allegations were matters of public interest and that to sue her successfully, Padrick would have to prove her negligence — the same standard that applies when news media are sued. "The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist," Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote.

While the Supreme Court has previously observed that the lines between traditional news media and Web content have become blurred, this makes the first time a federal appellate court has said that journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment."

Source and Full Article
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/21/first-amendment-blogging-scotus-column/4733781/

More on the Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Case

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ninth-Circuit-Crystal-Cox/1427423480823829

http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/

Eugene Volokh, UCLA Professor, Report on Search Engines and First Amendment Rights.

"White Paper" written by UCLA Law Professor, Constitutional Rights Attorney Eugene Volokh, commissioned by Google, regarding the Free Speech rights of Search Engines and Google being a "Publisher".

http://www.volokh.com/2012/05/09/first-amendment-protection-for-search-engine-search-results/

Here is the Article by Eugene Volokh UCLA Professor

http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/SearchEngineFirstAmendment.pdf

FREEDOM FOR THE PRESS AS AN INDUSTRY, OR FOR THE PRESS AS A TECHNOLOGY? FROM THE FRAMING TO TODAY "“[T]he freedom . . . of the press” specially protects the press as an industry, which is to say newspape

The Freedom of the Press and Equality to All Speakers. Article by Eugene Volokh,
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/press.pdf

" The Original and Traditional Meaning of “Freedom … of the Press”"

"“[T]he freedom … of the press” specially protects the press as an industry, which is to say newspapers, television stations, and the like — so have argued some judges and scholars, such as the Citizens United v. FEC dissenters and Justices Stewart, Powell, and Douglas. This argument is made in many contexts: election-related speech, libel law, the journalist’s privilege, access to government property, and more.

Some lower courts have indeed concluded that some First Amendment constitutional protections apply only to the institutional press, and not to book authors, political advertisers, writers of letters to the editor, professors who post material on their websites, or people who are interviewed by newspaper reporters.

Sometimes, this argument is used to support weaker protection for non-institutional-press speakers than is already given to institutional-press speakers. At other times, it is used to support greater protection for institutional-press speakers than they already get. The argument in the latter set of cases is that the greater protection can be limited to institutional-press speakers, and so will undermine rival government interests less than if the greater protection were extended to all speakers."

Source and Full Article
http://www.volokh.com/2012/01/02/the-original-and-traditional-meaning-of-freedom-of-the-press/

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari; Supreme Court of the United States Filing; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al; No. 13-9731

Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox; 

Supreme Court of the United States Filing;
Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al; No. 13-9731

No. 13-9731

Crystal Cox, Petitioner
v.
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al.

Docketed: April 16, 2014

Lower Court: 
United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

  Case Nos.: (12-35238, 12-35319)
  Decision Date: January 17, 2014
  Rehearing Denied: March 5, 2014

Apr 8 2014 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. 

(Response due May 16, 2014)

Attorneys for Petitioner:
Crystal L. Cox P.O. Box 2027
Port Townsend, WA  98368
Party name: Crystal Cox
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-9731.htm




To Read the writ of certiorari Filing by Crystal Cox, Pro Se, Click Below
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yBV1MgaxPbjqoYxC3op2241oidez4pEW2WJ2P-Lg8Hk/edit

UCLA, Law Professor, Attorney Eugene Volokh Motion to Rehear

Click Below

http://www.scribd.com/doc/204438383/Eugene-Volokh-Motion-to-Rehear-Obsidian-v-Cox


Other Links for Updates

https://certpool.com/dockets/13-9731

Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, et al., No. 13-9731

More on the Crystal Cox Blogger; Crystal Cox First Amendment Case, 

Equality of Bloggers; Ninth Circuit Appeals WIN for ALL Citizen Journalists,

 Anti-Corruption Bloggers, and Whistleblowers

http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/

Crystal Cox Blogger; "Confirmed: Bloggers Have First Amendment Rights as Corporate Media" Crystal L. Cox Blogger Ends the Monopoly of Free Speech that BIG Media Uses to CONTROL what "gets" to be called "Real News". Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox Defamation Case.

"Kudos to Free Speech Warriors - Crystal L. Cox and Eugene Volokh!

A big mahalo to Crystal L. Cox and Eugene Volokh for their valiant efforts to protect free press and free speech!

On January 17, 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Crystal L. Cox from Eureka, Montana who was sued by for defamation by Kevin Padrick, an attorney and his company - Obsidian Finance Group, LLC. Cox had written posts exposing fraud, corruption, money-laundering and so forth.

I will quote the circumstances as reported in the Associated Press by Jeff Barnard.

Crystal L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Mont., now living in Port Townsend, Wash., was sued for defamation by Bend attorney Kevin Padrick and his company, Obsidian Finance Group LLC, after she made posts on several websites she created accusing them of fraud, corruption, money-laundering and other illegal activities. The appeals court noted Padrick and Obsidian were hired by Summit Accommodators to advise them before filing for bankruptcy, and that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court later appointed Padrick trustee in the Chapter 11 case. The court added that Summit had defrauded investors in its real estate operations through a Ponzi scheme.

A jury in 2011 had awarded Padrick and Obsidian $2.5 million.

"Because Cox's blog post addressed a matter of public concern, even assuming that Gertz is limited to such speech, the district court should have instructed the jury that it could not find Cox liable for defamation unless it found that she acted negligently," judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote. "We hold that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages."

The appeals court upheld rulings by the District Court that other posts by Cox were constitutionally protected opinion.

The Reports Committee for the Freedom of the Press also provided its statements in Barnard's article:

"Standards set by a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., apply to everyone, not just journalists.

It's not a special right to the news media," he said. "So it's a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others."

Barnard further reported that:

Though Cox acted as her own attorney, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who had written an article on the issue, learned of her case and offered to represent her in an appeal. Volokh said such cases usually end up settled without trial, and it was rare for one to reach the federal appeals court level.

"It makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists," he said. "There had been similar precedents before concerning advocacy groups, other writers and book authors. This follows a fairly well established chain of precedents. I believe it is the first federal appeals court level ruling that applies to bloggers."

This ruling should be a clear reminder to misguided attorneys, corporations, developers or those with affluence to cease bullying or intimidating those who report the issues of the day.

Many concerned citizens have no choice but to create their own blogs and websites to level the playing field in this blossoming social media warfare.

The government has its plentiful public relations specialists, paid for by taxpayers. Corporations and special interests have their hired PR consultants. There are hired mercenaries who feel no qualms about spinning the facts. News media can be bought or controlled by big money or shut down.

It's not uncommon for the public to read articles or watch the TV news only to lament the irregularities or inadequate reporting. Oftentimes, critical issues are shunned or ignored by corporate media because of entwined relationships.

Bloggers with information or have intimate experiences and understanding of issues are critically needed now, more than ever.

Blog away!"

Source of Crystal Cox Blogger, Crystal L. Cox Blogger Article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/choon-james/confirmed-bloggers-have-f_b_4657313.html

You are the MEDIA folks. 

Start a Blog and REPORT the REAL News.

For More about the Crystal Cox Case

http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/

the Instantly Famous First Amendment Case with the $2.5 Million Dollar Verdict heard round the blogsphere.

"First Amendment lawyers and organizations that are concerned about the intersection of law and media, however, did not so quickly dismiss Obsidian v. Cox as just desserts for a blogger who — as Hernandez found — didn’t adhere to “journalistic standards.”

“I think it’s pretty significant,” says Eugene Volokh, the UCLA law professor and nationally recognized expert on the First Amendment who, along with Benjamin Souede of Angeli Law Group in Portland, now represent Cox and filed a motion for a new trial or remittitur on Jan. 4, 2012.

Volokh says the case raises the question of “whether the First Amendment treats equally all users or gives special protection to the institutional press.”

“There are now millions of users of mass media who are not part of the institutional press,” says Volokh, a native of what is now Ukraine who immigrated to the United States at age 7; graduated from UCLA at 15; clerked for a U.S. Supreme Court justice and, among numerous other endeavors, founded and co-authors the widely read weblog, The Volokh Conspiracy.

“District court decisions become really important,” he says, “because there are no U.S. Supreme Court decisions [on this issue].”

Volokh, who told the Bulletin that he is representing Cox pro bono as part of his “part, part, part, part-time” work as an academic affiliate for the global law firm Mayer Brown, says he learned of the case when his computer flagged it and someone other than Cox brought it to his attention. He said he has talked to Cox by telephone but has not met her.

Volokh’s view of the case’s importance is underscored by the opinions of other lawyers, as well as the fact that it has received attention from the Harvard-based Citizen Media Law Project, which referred to Padrick’s and Obsidian’s lawsuit as a “legal threat,”, and the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which filed an amicus curiae brief on Jan. 11. (The EFF and its local counsel, Richard McLeod of Klarquist Sparkman in Portland, did not respond to the Bulletin’s requests for comments.)

“I do think the case is nationally significant, and Eugene Volokh’s involvement is suggestive of that,”says Volokh’s local counsel, Souede, who attended Harvard Law School with Volokh’s younger brother Alexander “Sasha” Volokh, now an assistant professor at Emory University School of Law.

 “No matter where you come out on the issues, the question of how you are going to treat new media with respect to the protections generally afforded those who speak to the public is essential. It’s a powerful means of communication, and the lines need to be clear.”

Souede says that while his firm typically focuses on defending complex criminal and regulatory cases, “We always have an eye out for interesting public policy cases that we would like to get involved with. I knew the case involved a blogger, and Prof. (Eugene) Volokh is a pretty prominent blogger. He put up a post that he needed local counsel, and I knew the case to which he was referring.”

Duane Bosworth, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine in Portland who has represented The Oregonian, other print media and numerous television stations, says that he thinks traditional media outlets “are alarmed” by the case, particularly by Hernandez’s pretrial ruling that bloggers are not covered by Oregon’s right-of-retraction statute.

“This case has an unbelievable number of moving parts,” says Bosworth, who has written about it for the National Media Law Resource Center, a national consortium of newspaper publishers. “It’s been discussed all over: Forbes, the New York Times. It’s significant because it has elements about publishing on the Internet that have concerns for traditional publishers, and it raises concerns for bloggers about whether they have protection under statutes and the constitution.”

Source
http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/12apr/posterchild.html

More at
http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/