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
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.
"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/
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/
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
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.
""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.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Blogs everywhere us the Crystal Cox Case as protection to report the news and speak out; check out the disclaimer on this blog
http://mensrightsofarizona.blogspot.com/2015/10/looking-for-men-and-women-to-appear-on.html
"All Rights Strictly Enforced Under Federal Law!
This blog and all other print publications by this author and the Men's Rights Group of Arizona LLC is a form of journalism and protected freedom of speech as described in case law: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick v. Crystal Cox 12-35238. All Rights Will Be Strictly Enforced!"
"All Rights Strictly Enforced Under Federal Law!
This blog and all other print publications by this author and the Men's Rights Group of Arizona LLC is a form of journalism and protected freedom of speech as described in case law: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick v. Crystal Cox 12-35238. All Rights Will Be Strictly Enforced!"
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox makes HISTORY and set's landmark precedent.
"
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"
Source and Full Article
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Good News for Those need to have a blog to report on important issues of the times. Big Media is bought and paid for. The truth is in BLOGS, news by the people for the people.
"From Rev. Crystal Cox — a whistleblower receives protection from the 9th circuit
Posted on April 24, 2015
Reverend Crystal Cox
Crystal L. Cox, Port Townsend Washington
“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.”
“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.”
source
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/choon-james/confirmed-bloggers-have-f_b_4657313.html
“The Court stated, 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.”
They went on to cite cases in which individual speakers have been granted First Amendment rights, despite not being a part of the established press. For example, the First Amendment rights of authors have often been protected, regardless of their training, background, or affiliations .
” This is very good news for anyone who has a blog or even a desire to post things in an individual capacity on their social network.
It could also go a far way for advocacy groups that work unofficially for candidates and their rights to create media alleging things against candidates. It could also have important ramifications for blogging in other lawsuits.
For example, if a blogger is treated as a journalist for the purposes of the First Amendment, they could also be treated as a journalist in a matter like protection of sources.”
Source
http://marygsykes.com/2015/04/24/from-rev-crystal-cox-a-whistleblower-receives-protection-from-the-9th-circuit/
Posted on April 24, 2015
Reverend Crystal Cox
Crystal L. Cox, Port Townsend Washington
“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.”
“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.”
source
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/choon-james/confirmed-bloggers-have-f_b_4657313.html
“The Court stated, 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.”
They went on to cite cases in which individual speakers have been granted First Amendment rights, despite not being a part of the established press. For example, the First Amendment rights of authors have often been protected, regardless of their training, background, or affiliations .
” This is very good news for anyone who has a blog or even a desire to post things in an individual capacity on their social network.
It could also go a far way for advocacy groups that work unofficially for candidates and their rights to create media alleging things against candidates. It could also have important ramifications for blogging in other lawsuits.
For example, if a blogger is treated as a journalist for the purposes of the First Amendment, they could also be treated as a journalist in a matter like protection of sources.”
Source
http://marygsykes.com/2015/04/24/from-rev-crystal-cox-a-whistleblower-receives-protection-from-the-9th-circuit/
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Discussion on Citizen Journalists and the Crystal Cox Case.
"Citizen journalists and bloggers share the same rights as established journalists, according to the Ninth Circuit Court. The ruling came as a result of a defamation suit brought in Oregon against blogger Crystal Cox by the Obsidian Finance Group after she alleged they were guilty of fraud and other crimes. The court has ruled that she has the same first amendment protections as major media outlets, and the court ruled unanimously with three judges siding on Cox’ behalf. We discuss the legal guidelines for journalists being applied to citizens in this Buzzsaw news clip with Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha Wallace. Watch the full episode here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RImf3…"
Source
http://consciouslifenews.com/court-ruling-citizen-journalists-same-first-amendment-protections-major-media-outlets/
However NOTE that Cox did NOT have a Bad Background and in FACT is an Anti-Corruption Blogger who attorneys and Judges painted as to have had been a "bad person".
This "Blogger" did NOT have a Bad Background. The attorneys in the Case created this illusion in mass defamation, it is NOT True.
Yes the Court was used to Push an Agenda. Dig Deep into what that Agenda was?
Source
http://consciouslifenews.com/court-ruling-citizen-journalists-same-first-amendment-protections-major-media-outlets/
However NOTE that Cox did NOT have a Bad Background and in FACT is an Anti-Corruption Blogger who attorneys and Judges painted as to have had been a "bad person".
This "Blogger" did NOT have a Bad Background. The attorneys in the Case created this illusion in mass defamation, it is NOT True.
Yes the Court was used to Push an Agenda. Dig Deep into what that Agenda was?
Law School Question Regarding Obsidian v. Cox
The Question was "In what state did the reporter's privilege law applies to a blogger ( in the case Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox)?" There answer was OREGON
However, ponder this deeply folks. You are a blogger, in say Montana. You publish a blog post while living in Colorado. A corporation that is incorporated in the State of Washington and Oregon, sues you and they claim Oregon Law as jurisdiction over you.
You are a blogger whose reach is the entire world. Obsidian v. Cox as a case precedence is used all over the world. Read a case out of New Zealand recently. So I would say that there needs to be a national and international shield law, retraction law and to bring laws regarding media, into the New Media Revolution.
However, ponder this deeply folks. You are a blogger, in say Montana. You publish a blog post while living in Colorado. A corporation that is incorporated in the State of Washington and Oregon, sues you and they claim Oregon Law as jurisdiction over you.
You are a blogger whose reach is the entire world. Obsidian v. Cox as a case precedence is used all over the world. Read a case out of New Zealand recently. So I would say that there needs to be a national and international shield law, retraction law and to bring laws regarding media, into the New Media Revolution.
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Landmark Case, yet bloggers still face persecution
http://www.silha.umn.edu/news/WinterSpring2014/SILHACENTERBloggersFirstAmendmentUniversityofMinnesota.html
Monday, December 22, 2014
" Blurred Lines: Ninth Circuit Applies Same First Amendment Protections to Bloggers as Traditional Media"
"01.23.14
"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."
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.
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)"
" 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"
"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.
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
 |
| 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:
"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
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."
"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/
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/
“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 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 saidsuch 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,
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
Source
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- libel plaintiffs suing over statements on matters of public concern must prove that the defendant was negligent about the falsity of the statement, and
- 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
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.
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/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/21/first-amendment-blogging-scotus-column/4733781/
More on the Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Case
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".
Here is the Article by Eugene Volokh UCLA Professor
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
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/
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
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)