Wednesday, November 23, 2016

The Truth is the TRUTH. The Truth is not Republican or Democrat or any other part. The Truth has no color, no religion, no race, no side. It is Simply the Truth. The TRUTH is biased as it is the TRUTH. The TRUTH is not about presenting both sides. It is Either the actual TRUTH or it is NOT. The Truth is NOT about calling both sides of a story to see what they say. The TRUTH and True Journalism is about digging through documents, about find the TRUE facts and not asking the people involved. The TRUTH has no side, it is Simply the TRUTH. ~ Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox

Friday, May 27, 2016

Defend the Free Speech Rights of all Activist Bloggers, Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Alternative Medicine Bloggers and Whistleblowers in every corner of the WORLD. They are the LIGHT. They are the Defenders of the Victims of Corruption and they are Changing the Entire WORLD for the BETTER. Stand up for those Bloggers. Start a Blog, EXPOSE Corruption, Report on the News to YOU. Post Videos and Documented Proof. You are ALL Media. #YouAreMedia #YouAreTheMedia #BloggersRights

Ongoing Case Citing Research Link

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=obsidian+finance+group,+llc+v.+cox&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSnuKvn_vMAhUC12MKHXdhBjgQgQMIGjAA

Citing on Page 11

https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/cr319/319CR111.pdf

Freedom of the press

Defamation Citing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Co._v._Commissioner

Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox Case Overview


Click Below to Read
http://www.dmlp.org/threats/obsidian-finance-group-v-cox

Monday, January 25, 2016

“The protections of the 1st Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities,”

"Blogger Crystal Cox Wins Her Right Under the First Amendment To Post Her Opinions About Obsidian Finance Group

"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 U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals....The case was brought by Obsidian Finance Group and one of its principals, Kevin D. Padrick. Writing on several websites she created, blogger Crystal Cox accused them of fraud, corruption and other misconduct."

"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 U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The panel said its holding was the first of its kind within the 9th Circuit but that other circuit courts already have extended protections for journalists to individual speakers."

Source and Full Article
http://parentadvocates.org/nicecontent/dsp_printable.cfm?articleID=8583


Keep in mind that Crystal Cox never had criminal charges or a criminal investigation of any kind. Crystal Cox did NOT have a history of seeking a payoff. These words of the Ninth Circuit Judges were based on the "opinion" of a New York Times reporter.  And not based in Fact nor in the record of the lower court trial of which Ninth Circuit Judges are to get "Record" for Ninth Circuit Appeals.

You are NOW All Media as a Matter of Law. Report on Corruption and Unethical Behavior in your area, your courts, your Judges, your cops, and corporations. Provide links to documents of fact, videos, depositions, audios. BLOW the Proverbial Whistle.



Wednesday, January 20, 2016

JOURNALISM AND SHIELD LAWS: WHEN THE “WHO” CEASES TO MATTER

"Shield Laws: “legal rules which protect journalists against the government requiring them to reveal confidential sources or other information.” (SPJ, http://www.spj.org/shieldlaw-faq.asp)

The question on who should be considered a journalist with regards to shield laws is an important one, but one that derives from the presupposition that the comprehension of the meaning of “journalist” is necessary to understand the subjects and scope of shield norms. Though these laws were originally intended and designed to protect journalists, their configuration and construction raises an important question: Why only “journalists”? If shield laws provide special protection under the idea that by doing so they protect the free flow of information, how free is that flow if only some are allowed to affect it under protection? It would seem that the free flow of information would demand, due to its own nature, that protection is not a selective offer of the Law, but a democratized right, that distinguishes not on who (subjective criterion) has access to it but on why (objective criterion).

A different -yet related- question, takes us to similar answers. If we would approach the question “who is a journalist”, with the intention of defining who is protected by shield laws, the search for an answer would probably take us to an ever-broadening concept.

Immersed in this digital age, in the days of micro-blogging, online magazines, and social media, we can hardly tell the difference between a “journalist” and a person who blogs about certain issues and has investigated and revealed important information… whether that person should (or should not) be shielded by the law with regards to source disclosure.

Judicial decisions have also been shifting away from the traditional idea of the shield law subjects. Hence, though some jurisdictions (i.e. the District of Oregon) have defined shield law beneficiaries with a traditional outlook limiting it to professionals with a degree in journalism or people associated to a news outlet (United States District Court for the District of Oregon in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC  v. Cox), increasingly, others have presented a less orthodox approach, a more inclusive notion that also encompasses bloggers without these professional backgrounds.

As the New Hampshire Supreme Court declared, “freedom of the press is a fundamental personal right which is not confined to newspapers and periodicals.” (The Mortgage Specialist, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc.)

Therefore, the need to define who is or is not a journalist, with relation to shield laws, has been diminishing. Today, the question is more often “Why do shield laws beneficiaries have to fit a category (i.e.: journalists), that by doing what categories do, excludes?” and “Who can really tell who is definitively and fixedly not a journalist (or a potential journalist) in this digital age? ”

Source
http://thesocialsciencepost.com/en/2016/01/journalism-and-shield-laws-when-the-who-ceases-to-matter/

Grosjean v. American Press Co. - Obsidian v. Cox Citing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosjean_v._American_Press_Co.

Journal of Media Law - Obsidian v. Cox case cited

Journal of Media Law

Volume 7, Issue 2, 2015
Special Issue:   Privacy Law Ten Years after Campbell


Click Below to Read

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17577632.2015.1111552

Blogger gets same speech protections as traditional press: U.S. court

"A blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless she acted negligently,"

""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."

Source
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-blogger-ruling-idUSBREA0G1HI20140117

the Opposition in the above case paint Defendant / Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox in false light, they spread the story that Cox sought money for a retraction, and they spread a piece of a settlement negotiation to fake their claims. Cox NEVER received money to remove any of her anti-corruption blog posts.