THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, Obsidian v. Cox Case Citing Page 14

THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS,  July 2016

MARK BOAL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et
al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:16-CV-05407-GHK-GJS
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE
THE REPORTERS
COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM
OF THE PRESS AND 36
MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
EX PARTE APPLICATION
[Notice of Motion and Motion and
[Proposed] filed Concurrently
Herewith]
Date: August 29, 2016
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Judge: Honorable George H. King

Click Below to Read Filing
https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/amici-curiae-brief.pdf

You are now Media as of a Matter of Law Due to the Crystal Cox Case. So, start a blog, tell your story, report the news in your town, area of expertise or news you know.

"Bloggers = Media for First Amendment Libel Law Purposes

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

Obsidian v. Cox ~ Ninth Circuit Blogger First Amendment Case

YES the First Amendment DOES apply to Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistleblowers. Don't let a DIRTY Judge tell you any different. Stand UP for your RIGHTS.

"Bloggers enjoy First Amendment protection against libel suits

"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, Oregon 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 Ninth Circuit saw things differently, deciding that Cox’s allegations were matters of public interest and 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 native web content have become blurred, this makes the first time that federal appellate court has essentially said that journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment.

But we already knew that. The purpose of the free press clause of the First Amendment was to keep an eye on people in power and maintain a check on corruption. Given the cutbacks in traditional media, bloggers have taken up the slack, serving as watchdogs with attitude.

And of course, traditional reporters now blog daily, and prominent bloggers show up in traditional media.

Yet we still see a condescending and uninformed attitude from some lawmakers and judges who seem not to understand that digital and social media deserve the same respect as newspapers, magazines and broadcasters.

There is still resistance to including bloggers in a federal shield law, and as recently as 2012 a federal court judge concluding that “liking” a Facebook page was not protected free speech, a flawed decision overturned in September.

Speech doesn’t get much more free than blogs and comments on websites, and long-established principles protecting opinion and hyperbole help to keep it that way. In this case, the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision to toss out other libel claims against Cox, despite her assertions that her targets engaged in corruption, fraud, deceit, money laundering, harassment and illegal activity. She called them immoral “evil doers” and “thugs” and alleged that a hit man had been hired to kill her.

The appellate court concluded that Cox’s post were so outrageous that no one would take them seriously and these hyperbolic attacks couldn’t be the basis of a lawsuit. Apparently it also helps to name your site “obsidianfinancesucks.com.”

The decision in a nutshell: Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning  public matters can only be sued if they’re negligent, and if you do decide to attack someone online, make sure you go over the top.

Ironically, the federal court’s decision protecting bloggers was based on Gertz v. Welch, a landmark Supreme Court case now in its 40th anniversary year. In lieu of cake and candles, we have a brand new case applying the case’s landmark decision to the most contemporary of media.

As abusive and derisive as some bloggers may be, they’re direct descendants of the first generation of Americans, who used pamphlets and politically-driven newspapers to attack their political rivals.  It was then that the nation’s founders ratified the First Amendment, paving the way for robust discussion of public issues, regardless of medium. That’s something worth celebrating."

Source
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/bloggers-enjoy-first-amendment-protection-against-libel-suits

Yes First case of it's Kind. Landmark case. NO Crystal Cox had NO history of seeking payoff for retractions. NOT one. Not Ever.

"a
Appeals court overturns defamation award against blogger
A panel of 9th Circuit judges rules that bloggers have the same 1st Amendment protections as traditional news media.
January 17, 2014|By Maura Dolan
Email
Share

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court unanimously overturned a defamation award against a blogger Friday, ruling that 1st Amendment protections for traditional news media extend to individuals posting on the Web.

"The protections of the 1st Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities," Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote for a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The panel said its holding was the first of its kind within the 9th Circuit, though other circuit courts have held that individuals have the same free speech rights as the news media.

"This case is the first one from a federal court of appeals that specifically protects the rights of bloggers," said UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh, who represented blogger Crystal Cox on appeal."

Source
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/17/local/la-me-blogger-1st-amendment-20140118

The Crystal Cox Free Speech Case was the First of It's Kind, a Case which gave Equal Free Speech Rights to ALL online Speakers, to that of the Highest Paid Journalist in the Wealthiest of Publications.

"Bloggers Get Same Speech Protections As Press: 9th Circ.

By Michael Lipkin

Law360, Los Angeles (January 17, 2014, 5:49 PM ET) -- Bloggers and others who speak on issues of public concern are entitled to the same free-speech protections as traditional journalists, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled Friday, finding a trustee that a blogger had criticized for its role in a real estate bankruptcy needed to show the blogger had acted negligently.

Writing for a unanimous panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz reversed part of a lower court decision that found Obsidian Finance Group LLC did not need to show fault to establish liability against blogger Crystal Cox.

Cox had accused Obsidian of tax fraud in its role as trustee in a real estate bankruptcy case, and was hit with a $2.5 million defamation verdict in 2011 over her posts.

But the trial court erred in not granting Cox certain First Amendment protections, the panel ruled Friday, citing U.S. Supreme Court cases that held the institutional press did not have greater constitutional privileges than other speakers.

“As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable,” the opinion said. “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.”

According to Obsidian's January 2011 complaint, Cox accused Obsidian of tax fraud when it collected and liquidated the assets of investment company Summit Accommodators, calling Obsidian trustee Kevin Padrick a “thug and a thief hiding behind the skirt tails of a corrupt unmonitored bankruptcy court system.”

Cox argued that the distinction between anyone who shares information with the public and traditional print and broadcast media has blurred, entitling any such speaker to be protected from defamation suits unless it can be proved that they acted negligently. Because the district court judge did not inform the jury about the negligence requirement, Cox is entitled to a new trial, Friday’s decision said.

“The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, [was] 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,” the opinion said.

Obsidian had also argued that it did not need to prove negligence because Cox’s blog posts did not involve a public concern. But the court ruled that Cox wrote to readers at large about issues of public importance.

“The allegations against Padrick and his company raised questions about whether they were failing to protect the defrauded investors because they were in league with their original clients,” the opinion said.

Cox’s attorney praised the decision for finding the First Amendment protects bloggers as much as it does professional reporters.

“The First Amendment protects all who use ‘the press,’ in the sense of the printing press and its technological heirs, and not just the few who are members of the business that we now call ‘the press,’" said Eugene Volokh, an academic affiliate at Mayer Brown LLP and founder of the popular legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy.

Meanwhile, an attorney for Obsidian claimed Cox had a history of seeking payoffs in exchange for retracting similar allegations, according to the opinion, and that Cox had admitted her post was untrue. (Sidenote here by Crystal Cox, I never admitted such, the courts took it to this stage. I have always and do alway claim Kevin Padrick was Corrupt and defrauded investors, as well as lot's of unspeakable crimes. Also there was Never a History of COX, me, seeking a payoff to remove my reporting. See Also my appeal of my win, at this link
https://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/2014/02/blogger-crystal-cox-through-her.html  Whereby my attorney, at my DEMAND, sought to hold the Ninth Circuit Judges in my case, accountable for their False Claims against me in a their high court Ruling.  I lost this appeal, however, as an activist litigant, I made the point as far as I see it.  Also check out, https://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/2014/12/it-is-not-ok-for-judges-to-accuse-you.html

Now Back to Mayer Brown Press Release

“Ms. Cox's false and defamatory statements have caused substantial damage to our clients, and we are evalu ating our options with respect to the court's decision,” Steven Wilker of Tonkon Torp LLP said.

Judges Andrew D. Hurwitz, Arthur L. Alarcon and Milan D. Smith Jr. sat on the panel for the Ninth Circuit.

Obsidian is represented by Steven Wilker, Robyn Aoyagi and David Aman of Tonkon Torp LLP.

Cox is represented by Eugene Volokh of Mayer Brown LLP.

The cases are Obsidian Finance Group LLC et al. v. Crystal Cox, case number 12-35238 and 12-35319, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Source, Mayer Brown Law Firm Press Release 2014
https://www.mayerbrown.com/-/media/files/news/2014/01/bloggers-get-same-speech-protections-as-press-9th/files/bloggers-get-same-speech-protections-as-press-9th/fileattachment/bloggers-get-same-speech-protections-as-press-9th.pdf