Hero Dictionary: Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox - Wikipedia. Reverend Crystal Cox Port Townsend Washington Landmark, First of it's Kind Free Speech Case.

  "Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon concerning online defamation. 

Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Crystal Cox for maintaining several blogs that accused Obsidian and Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. 

The court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, but found ONE single post to be more factual in its assertions and therefore defamatory. For that post, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. 

This case is notable for the court's ruling that Cox, as an internet blogger, was not a journalist and was thus not protected by Oregon's media shield laws,

[1] although the court later clarified that its ruling did not categorically exclude blogs from being considered media and indicated that its decision was based in part upon Cox offering to remove negative posts for a $2,500 fee.

[2] In January 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to the bankruptcy trustee.

[3] It also ordered a new trial on the blog post at issue.[3]

Background

Obsidian Finance Group is a financial advisory firm which was managing the bankruptcy of Summit 1031, a real estate company. Crystal Cox is a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger" who maintained the blogs obsidianfinancesucks.com, summit1031sucks.com, and bankruptcycorruption.com, amongst various others. 

On her blogs, Cox accused Obsidian and its co-founder Kevin Padrick of committing tax fraud, paying off the media and politicians, intimidating and threatening whistleblowers, and engaging in various other illegal activities in their handling of the bankruptcy. Cox repeatedly claimed that her investigations would expose Obsidian and Padrick's corruption. 

In response, Obsidian and Padrick brought suit against Cox for defamation, asserting that all of Cox's claims were false and damaging Padrick's reputation.[4][5]

Procedural History

The court initially intended to dismiss the defamation claims against Cox. To establish a defamation claim, the alleged defamatory material must be asserting a fact that can be proven true or false, as opposed to merely stating an opinion. 

The court held that even though Cox's allegations of fraud and corruption are technically assertions of fact, they appeared on obviously biased blogs and Cox made no attempt to provide supporting evidence.

The court ruled that in the context of Cox's ranting, hyperbolic blog posts, the allegations are unlikely to be taken as fact by any of her audience. As a result, the court held that Cox's right to voice her opinions was protected by the First Amendment and that her statements could not be considered defamation.[4]

However, after plaintiffs submitted additional blog posts for review, the court found one post to be more factual in tone and content than the others. 

The post delved into the details of Summit's bankruptcy filing and tax liability, and made specific accusations against Obsidian and Padrick for lying on tax filings and stealing money. The court allowed the defamation claim on this one particular post to move forward.[5]

A trial was held on November 29, 2011, and the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding Obsidian and Padrick $2.5 million in damages.[6][7]

Opinion of the Court

After the trial, on November 30, 2011, the court issued an opinion clarifying some of its pre-trial oral rulings.[6]

Oregon's shield and retraction statutes

Cox had claimed that her allegations against Obsidian and Padrick were based on evidence from a secret source, and she refused to name her source citing media shield protection.[1] Under Oregon's media shield laws, any person involved with a "medium of communication to the public" did not have to reveal the source of their information, where "medium of communication" is defined as "including but not limited to" a list of traditional modes of media such as newspapers, magazines, television, and so on.[8] 

The court did not specifically decline to interpret the statutes to include bloggers as "media", rather holding that based on the facts of the case, Cox was not affiliated with any of the enumerated mediums, had no indicia of reliability as a journalist, and thus she did not qualify for the media shield laws.[6]

Additionally, the court held that even if Cox could be considered "media", she would still not qualify. Oregon's media shield does not apply in a civil defamation lawsuit, where the defendant has asserted "a defense based on the[...] source of allegedly defamatory information."[6][8]

Cox also tried to assert immunity under Oregon's retraction statutes, which state that general damages for defamation could only be awarded if the plaintiffs had sought a retraction, which Padrick had not. 

The court again held that Cox did not qualify because her blogs and practices did not fall under any of the traditional modes of media specifically enumerated in the statute.[6][9]

First Amendment issues

Cox asserted that because the plaintiffs are public figures and because she blogged about a matter of public concern, First Amendment protections are triggered. As a result, to prove defamation, actual malice on Cox's part must be shown. "Actual malice" would require that Cox had knowledge of the truth and knowingly disregarded the facts, instead of simply making a false assertion of facts on her blog. Ultimately, the court held that neither Obsidian or Padrick were public figures, stating that the Summit 1031 bankruptcy Cox blogged on was neither controversial nor newsworthy, and Cox was the only person trying to publicize the issue. As a result, actual malice did not need to be proven by the plaintiffs.[6]

Media Protections to Defamation

Cox also asserted that even if the plaintiffs weren't public figures, in order for the plaintiffs to claim damages, they must prove actual malice because she is a "media" outlet. Here, the court again held that Cox did not qualify as "media". In its reasoning, the court cited her lack of a journalism degree, lack of affiliation with traditional media outlets, lack of adherence to journalistic standards such as fact-checking and fair coverage, and the absence of Cox writing any original material rather than assembling the works of others. As such, the plaintiffs could seek damages without any further evidence of actual malice.[6]

Reactions and status after district court ruling

The holdings in this case re-ignited a public discussion over whether bloggers should be considered journalists and entitled to the same protections.[10] Cox suggested that this case "should matter to everyone who writes on the Internet" and that if she "[doesn't] win [her] appeal, we all lose".[1][11] Padrick responded by saying that "the concept of media [would be] rendered worthless [...] if anyone can self-proclaim themselves to be media". 

Padrick also pointed out the real damage done to his reputation and business by Cox, and stated his belief that he would have won the case even if Cox had been considered  "media".[11][12][13] 

Cox's motion for a new trial was denied. Currently, Cox is seeking to appeal the judgment, citing First Amendment grounds. Obsidian has filed a motion to seize and sell Cox's right to appeal to help satisfy its $2.5 million judgment, on the grounds that Cox's appeal right is intangible personal property subject to seizure. Cox is attempting to block the seizure to proceed with the appeal.[15][16][17]

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling

After granting Cox motion for appeal a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court issued its judgement in Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox (2014) on January 17, 2014.[3]

Judgement summary and First Amendment defamation impact

Judgement summary

A court summary produced by court staff summarized the Ninth Circuit ruling as follows:

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to a bankruptcy trustee on a defamation claim against an Internet blogger. The panel extended the principle held in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 350 (1974), that the First Amendment required only a "negligence standard for private defamation actions", is not limited to cases with institutional media defendants. The panel further held that the blog post at issue addressed a matter of public concern, and the district court should have instructed the jury that it could not find the blogger liable for defamation unless it found that she acted negligently. The panel held that the bankruptcy trustee did not become a "public official" simply by virtue of court appointment, or by receiving compensation from the court. The panel remanded for a new trial on the blog post at issue, and affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the other blog posts that were deemed constitutionally protected opinions.[3]

First Amendment defamation impact

The issue whether First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to both the institutional press and individual speakers has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.[3] 

But every United States appeals court which addressed this issue concluded[18][19][20][21][22][23][3] that the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan (1964) and its progeny case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers.[3][24] The Ninth Circuit followed this trend with its January 2014 ruling by holding that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless he acted negligently.[25] The court essentially said journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment.[26] 

The court ruling is also a novelty because for the first time [27][28] an appeals court ruled that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently.[25]

The three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled[3] ruled that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages.[25] Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning public matters can only be sued if they're negligent i.e. the plaintiff must prove the defendants negligence – the same standard that applies when news media are sued. 

The federal appellate court thus essentially said that journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment[26] and, in the words of Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, that nonprofessional press, especially bloggers, "for First Amendment purposes, have the same rights as others do, as for example the institutional media does."[24]

The unanimous three-judge panel rejected the argument that the negligence standard established for private defamation actions by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. only applied to "the institutional press."[24] "The Gertz court did not expressly limit its holding to the defamation of institutional media defendants," Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for the three-judge panel. "And, although the Supreme Court has never directly held that the Gertz rule applies beyond the institutional press, it has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers."[24] 

Hurwitz wrote: "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. … 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."[29]

Source and Full Document with Lots of Links

https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox

Reverend Crystal Cox's Attorney Eugene Volokh Files Appeal to Ninth Circuit called the Judges out on accusing Cox of a Crime in a Civil Case

“Eugene Volokh files motion asking Ninth Circuit for Redaction of Allegations of Crystal Cox Blogger Crystal Cox, through her attorney Eugene Volokh, UCLA Constitutional Law Professor files a motion requesting the court to withhold allegations of Cox having a history of seeking a payoff in exchange for retraction.”

https://www.prlog.org/12276893-eugene-volokh-files-motion-asking-ninth-circuit-for-redaction-of-allegations-of-crystal-cox.html

The Crystal Cox Case is a Game Changer. NOW you are MEDIA as a Matter of Law and Higher Court Precedent

"What the Crystal Cox case means for digital media

The case, which threatened to turn a great deal of business journalism into a crime, made its way to the California Court of Appeals. In 2006, the court ruled against Apple and for the websites. Journalism was also a winner.


That affair came to mind this week when a federal judge in Oregon, ruling in a libel case, came to a different conclusion. In deciding that blogger Crystal Cox's blistering attack on an investment firm and its co-founder was defamatory, he said she was not a journalist and therefore could not keep her source's identity secret under that state's shield law. Even if she had met that standard, he wrote, she'd still have had to divulge the identity of her source for the post.

In reaching that conclusion, the judge relied on wording in the law that makes no mention of digital media. And, following a laundry list of what he considered acceptable journalistic credentials and practices, he concluded she met none of his criteria and therefore was not part of the news media."

Source  and Full Article
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/dec/08/crystal-cox-case-digital-media

BLOGS are MEDIA. And Bloggers NOW have Equal Rights as a Matter of Law because of the Crystal Cox Case Ninth Circuit Win.

"Bloggers entitled to same free speech protections as traditional journalists"

" Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Andrew Hurwitz issued an opinion in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC. v. Cox.  His opening line was as follows:

“This case requires us to address a question of first impression: What First Amendment protections are afforded a blogger sued for defamation?”

This important new decision involved a blog post by blogger Crystal Cox, in which she accused a financial firm and its bankruptcy trustee of tax fraud.  At the trial court level, the judge rejected Cox’s First Amendment arguments concerning the liability standards that should govern the case, reasoning that she had “failed to submit evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist.”

However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, holding that:

“The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities…As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, A First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and others speakers is unworkable.”

The court then went on to quote some of the only rational language (in my opinion) from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:

“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.”

The Ninth Circuit ultimately held that Cox should get a new trial and the distinction between bloggers and traditional reports is irrelevant in this context.  
Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who represented Cox, noted the importance of this decision in the era of online content:

“In this day and age, with so much important stuff produced by people who are not professionals, it’s harder than ever to decide who is a member of the institutional press.”

So what are some of the other important takeaways for online commentators out there?

The court reaffirmed that opinions which employ “figurative and hyperbolic language” that cannot be proved as true or false are constitutionally protected.

Additionally, “while ‘pure’ opinions are protected by the First Amendment, a statement that ‘may imply a false assertion of fact’ is actionable.”  So while opinions are usually protected as free speech, if you are making a factual claim, you should be able to provide evidence to support your claim.  For example, if you write a review on Yelp that a restaurant charged your credit card $10 more than what you signed for on your receipt, then you should be able to support this claim with a copy of the receipt and your credit card billing statement.

However, regardless of what precautions someone takes, anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason, even if it’s entirely without merit.  Luckily for those of you in about half of the states, anti-SLAPP laws have been enacted to help you get those meritless suits dismissed relatively quickly and painlessly."

Source
http://www.casp.net/uncategorized/bloggers-entitled-to-same-free-speech-protections-as-traditional-journalists/

The Crystal Cox Case is a Landmark Decision and it is a Game Changer for all New Media.

"Bloggers Gain First Amendment Victories But Still Face Issues in Online Journalism

Bloggers achieved a significant victory when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held on Jan. 17, 2014 that First Amendment protections in defamation lawsuits extend to bloggers. 

In April 2014, a Florida appellate court held that bloggers were entitled to pre-suit notices for defamation suits under Florida law. Although the victories are welcome news to online content producers everywhere, the jailing of an Alabama blogger has raised questions and concerns among free speech advocates. Online speakers may still have obstacles to overcome before courts fully recognize that First Amendment protections apply to them.

Ninth Circuit Recognizes First Amendment Protections for Bloggers

On Jan. 17, 2014, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that bloggers receive the same First Amendment protections as institutional media in defamation lawsuits. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 740 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 2014).

The case involved a dispute between Kevin Padrick, a principal with Obsidian Finance, a firm that advises financially troubled businesses, and Crystal Cox, a self-described investigative blogger. In 2008, Obsidian began working with Summit Accommodators, which was considering filing for bankruptcy.

A bankruptcy court appointed Padrick as Chapter 11 trustee once Summit filed reorganization paperwork. Shortly thereafter, Cox began posting accusations of criminal activity carried out by Padrick and Obsidian in their work with the Summit bankruptcy on several different websites, including “obsidianfinancesucks.com.” After sending a cease-and-desist letter that Cox did not comply with, Padrick and Obsidian filed a defamation suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

The district court held that only one blog post could be interpreted as containing a statement of fact, and could proceed to trial. Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D. Or. 2011).

The remaining blog posts were considered constitutionally protected opinions because they did not contain provable statements of fact. Cox also claimed protection under Oregon’s journalist’s shield law, but District Judge Marco A. Hernandez held that she did not meet the definitions of who can receive protection as laid out by the state statute. (For more information on Cox’s shield law claims, see “Defamation Lawsuits Pose Threat to Journalists as Online Communication Complicates First Amendment Analysis” in the Spring 2012 issue of the Silha Bulletin).

Cox also made First Amendment arguments that the liability standards should be governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, 418 U.S. 323 (1974). In Gertz, the Supreme Court held that a private plaintiff needs to show only negligence to recover actual damages from a media defendant.

But a plaintiff can only recover presumed or punitive damages upon a showing that a media defendant acted with “actual malice,” meaning that the statements were made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. Cox argued that, under Gertz, Padrick and Obsidian carried the burden of proving her negligence in order to recover actual damages for defamation.

Cox also argued that Padrick and Obsidian must show that she acted with actual malice to receive presumed damages. Judge Hernandez dismissed these arguments, stating that Cox had not proven that she was a journalist. Therefore, the protections of Gertz did not apply to her.

Cox also contended that Padrick and Obsidian were public figures. Under the New York Times v. Sullivan and the Gertz rulings, public figures are required to prove actual malice before they may recover any type of damages. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). The district court judge once again dismissed this argument, stating that Padrick and Obsidian had not made themselves public figures by becoming involved with a public controversy. Rather, Cox had created the controversy.

At the conclusion of the trial, a jury returned verdicts in favor of Padrick and Obsidian. Cox moved for a new trial, which the district court denied. Cox then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court had ruled incorrectly on the liability standards and Padrick’s and Obsidian’s public figure status. Padrick and Obsidian filed a cross-appeal contending that the jury should have considered their defamation claims relating to the other blog posts.

In a unanimous decision, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court’s judgment against Cox. The court held that Gertz’s liability rules were not limited only to situations that involved traditional media defendants. The opinion by Judge Andrew Hurwitz explained that although the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Gertz standard applied to others besides institutional media, the Court’s language in the opinion also did not limit the ruling to institutional media alone. Hurwitz wrote, “[the Supreme Court] has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers,” citing several cases in which the high court declined to create a distinction between members of the press and the general public.

As a result, the court agreed with other circuits that “the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan and its progeny apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers.” The court also noted that trying to create a distinction between institutional media and other communicators was very difficult.

Therefore, the court said that the key First Amendment factor under Gertz in defamation cases was not the identity of the speaker. Rather, “the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue” are the key First Amendment considerations. Through this rationale, Cox, as a blogger, was entitled to the same liability standards that traditional forms of media received under the First Amendment.

In addition to determining that Sullivan and Gertz protections apply to the general public, the appeals court also rejected the argument that Gertz was limited to defamation cases involving matters of public concern. Hurwitz wrote that even if Gertz was limited to such a situation, Cox’s blog posts concerned public matters qualifying for protection.  However, the appellate court rejected Cox’s argument that Padrick and Obsidian became public officials because a bankruptcy court appointed them to oversee Summit’s affairs and provided compensation to them. The court also held that Cox’s remaining blog posts were clearly opinions. The panel concluded its decision by granting Cox’s request for a new trial.

Several First Amendment advocates and advocacy organizations praised the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who represented Cox during the appeals process, told Associated Press reporter Jeff Barnard for a Jan. 17, 2014 article that the decision “makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists.” 

Volokh also noted that the decision followed similar court rulings that granted First Amendment protections to other writers and book authors, although this ruling appeared to be the first to grant protection to bloggers. In the same article, Gregg Leslie, the legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), said the ruling confirmed the fact that Gertz was “not a special right to the news media.” Rather, it applied to everyone. “So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others,” Leslie said.

In a Jan. 24, 2014 commentary, First Amendment Center President Ken Paulson called the Ninth Circuit’s ruling a “landmark decision.” Paulson noted that given the growing financial constraints on traditional news media, many bloggers had taken on the role of the watchdog of people with power. The Ninth Circuit’s holding that bloggers deserve the same protections as traditional media was “something worth celebrating.” 

On the same day, Jim Rosenfeld, Ambika K. Doran and Jeremy A. Chase, attorneys with the firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, called the decision “a major win for individuals who blog, share, tweet, and otherwise publish their views online.” 

The attorneys explained that the panel’s language provided First Amendment protections to all speakers regardless of affiliation with institutional media.

As a result, the attorneys said, “an individual blogger, website operator or social media users speaking publicly on the Internet enjoy the same First Amendment protections from defamation claims as traditional media publishers.”

Nevertheless, some observers have noted that the case may not be a total victory. In a Jan. 17, 2014 post, Digital Media Law Project director Jeff Hermes wrote that although the court rightly decided the case, he was concerned that the court’s statements seemed to suggest that the reason Cox’s speech was protected in some blog posts was because few people could reasonably believe that content on blogs.

Hermes wrote that such assumptions about online content could devalue factual speech in the name of protecting it. “Respecting speech means evaluating it on its merits, instead of assuming that it has none,” he said."

Source
http://silha.umn.edu/news/WinterSpring2014/SILHACENTERBloggersFirstAmendmentUniversityofMinnesota.html

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