Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit; "Is there any surprise that the legacy media HATES the bloggers, and wants them NOT to have any protections?" "Wow, what an amazing, crystal clear victory for the blogger!"

"By California Lawyer | Friday, January 24, 2014 at 4:23 pm What First Amendment protections are afforded a blogger sued for defamation? This was the question presented recently in a case just decided in the most liberal appellate court jurisdiction in the USA, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The issue was one of first impression, and is a critically important legal decision in light of the emergence of bloggers and the alternative media. It is of obvious concern to anyone that blogs, like Mr. TF, all the guest posters and contributors here, too, so an in depth discussion is warranted."

"So, naturally, a pointed question must be asked, if we as a group are going to have any rights to stand up and say what we want without fear of crippling lawsuits that will chill our very free speech rights and squelch our dissent big time: “what, if any, legitimacy should be given to bloggers?”

The previous argument, advanced by the monopolistic legacy media,, witnessing their slow and inexorable demise, was that bloggers get no special protection, because they are nobody’s. Pure and simple. Only journalists–that is, credentialed elite from the nation’s liberal/progressive indoctrination camps, err, universities–get First Amendment protections, not some blogger or bloggers hammering away on mommy’s computer in the basement.

Bloggers, naturally, felt otherwise."

"Is there any surprise that the legacy media HATES the bloggers, and wants them NOT to have any protections? 

Keep reading.

So, the confrontation finally resulted in a trial, then an appeal. See, if a blogger gets sued for defamation, and settles, there is NO LEGAL PRECEDENT, AND NO DEFINITIVE RULING. 

The ONLY way the case law changes is when a blogger courageously steps up and commits to having a jury decide the case, and thereafter, if one or both decide to formally appeal the case to the appellate court. Naturally, the stakes are high, and stacked heavily against the blogger.

There is NO huge news organization backing the blogger, so absent a kind soul volunteering his or her time, there usually is no chance for the blogger. But every now and then, there is a case that attracts some attention, and a volunteer steps from the shadows.

That is exactly what happened recently."

"Hotly contested at trial of this issue was the legal standard that should govern a claim of defamation when the lawsuit involved a blogger and supposed matters of public concern. The blogger, Ms. Cox, raised two First Amendment arguments:

(1) Because the alleged false statement involved a matter of public concern, then Padrick and his company had to prove BOTH the blogger’s negligence (negligence is a legal concept that means a person had a duty to act reasonably under the circumstances, but did not; typically the argument is asserted that the person “knew or should have known” the statement was false, but published it anyway), AND that they could not recover PRESUMED damages absent proof that the blogger acted with ACTUAL MALICE (actual malice is SUPER DIFFICULT to prove, because it requires a showing that the blogger KNEW the post was false or acted with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity);

(2) Ms. Cox, the blogger, also argued that Padrick and Obsidian were public figures [bankruptcy trustee and his company], and as public figures, the blogger argued that Padrick and Obsidian were required to prove that Cox made the statements against them with actual malice.

The trial judge rejected Ms. Cox’s legal arguments. The trial judge felt that ““Padrick and Obsidian were not required to prove either negligence or actual damages because Cox had failed to submit “evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist.” [citations]. The [trial judge] also ruled that neither Padrick nor Obsidian was an all-purpose public figure or a limited public figure based upon Padrick's role as a bankruptcy trustee, finding that they had not injected themselves into a public controversy, but rather that Cox had “created the controversy.””

In short, the trial judge REJECTED the notion that blogger is entitled to any sort of journalistic protection.

Does that not sound like the same, tired meme from the legacy media, trying to protect the crippled, failing fiat ponzi scheme of the broken federal reserve system? Entrenched, legacy bureaucrats protecting THEIR tired, worn system at all costs, is that not readily apparent? Newspapers? What’s that? Blogging?

We ARE IT, and it is time the old school judges and legacy media embrace us."

After closing arguments, the judge read the law to the jurors. This part of the trial is known as jury instruction. The judge told the jury that under Oregon law, “"Defendant's [the blogger, Ms. Cox’s] knowledge of whether the statements at issue were true or false and defendant's intent or purpose in publishing those statements are not elements of the claim and are not relevant to the determination of liability.” The judge also told the jury that "plaintiffs [Obsidian and Padrick] are entitled to receive reasonable compensation for harm to reputation, humiliation, or mental suffering even if plaintiff does not present evidence that proves actual damages . . . because the law presumes that the plaintiffs suffered these damages."


So, what happened, is that proof that the statement was made was all that was required, and it matter not one bit whether Ms. Cox knew or should have known of the falsity of the statement. Secondly, the most galling part, is that neither Obsian or Padrick had to prove any harm at all.

The law “presumes”–legal gobbledygook for “makes up out of thin air because we say so”– that Obsidian and Padrick had suffered harm and therefore, the jury only has to make up a number out of thin air which they can guess at and which has no basis at all in fact. Kind of like fiat FRN’s come to think of it . . .


With that legal set up, there should be no surprise: the jury found against the blogger, and awarded substantial compensation in favor of Padrick and Obsidian.


Following the trial, Ms. Cox made some arguments in front of the trial judge, pointing out that it was wrong for the court to instruct the jury as it did, that is, by failing to tell the jury that Ms. Cox was entitled to certain First Amendment protections “including requiring plaintiffs to establish liability by proving that [she] acted with some degree of fault, whether it be negligence or 'actual malice."'

The trial judge also rejected the blogger’s arguments that a showing of fault was required because the defendants were public figures and that the blog post referred to a matter of public concern," and thus concluded that a showing of fault was not required to establish liability, and that presumed damages could be awarded.


So, the only options were to pay the huge verdict or appeal the jury verdict and the judge’s instruction based on application of an incorrect legal standard.


At this point, also, the blogger managed to attract the attention of a UCLA law professor, who helped her in the effort to appeal the trial court’s ruling. [“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.”

"In the appeal, Volokh admitted both that (1) the blog post contained an assertion of fact which (2) the jury correctly concluded was false and defamatory. The appeal was only based on the trial court’s incorrect legal rulings that “liability could be imposed without a showing of fault or actual damages and . . .Padrick and Obsidian were not public officials.”


Naturally, Obsidian and Padrick wanted the verdict upheld. 

They asserted various arguments. First, they argued that only the “institutional press”–that is, the legacy, mainstream media–were afforded protection under a negligence standard.
What they were arguing is that BECAUSE the blogger was NOT mainstream press, then Obsidian and Padrick did not have to prove the blogger’s fault. They claimed that defamation against a blogger was governed by a standard of strict liability, that is, they claimed they only had to prove that the false statement was made, and voila, winner winner chicken dinner!


Not so fast said the Court. Gertz did instruct that there was a need to shield "the press and broadcast media from the rigors of strict liability for defamation" [citation], but the Court in this case said: “holding in Gertz sweeps more broadly.”


The court said this:

“Like the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit has not directly addressed whether First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to both the institutional press and individual speakers. But every other circuit to consider the issue has held that the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan and its progeny apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers. [citations] We agree with our sister circuits.”


“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.”


The Court then delivered a stunning victory to the blogger: 

“We therefore hold that the Gertz negligence requirement for private defamation actions is not limited to cases with institutional media defendants.”


This means that a private, basement-dwelling blogger or contributor, cannot be successfully sued under a strict liability standard, that is, for simply making the false statement of fact. 

Instead, the blogger must be shown to have made the statement on the basis that the blogger knew, or should have known of the falsity of the statement.

This is a HUGE victory for internet bloggers on this point alone.


But, like any case, there was not just one argument. Obsidian and Padrick also argued that there was another reason why jury’s verdict should stand under the strict liability standard that the trial court applied [thus making their case easier to prove because there was no requirement of proving fault of the blogger in making the statement].

Obsidian and Padrick argued that the negligence standard, requiring them to prove fault, only arose, unlike here, in the context of defamation involving matters of public concern. They argued, that Obsidian and Padrick were not engaged in such matters of public concern, and thus, they should NOT have to prove fault. They argued that strict liability thus applied, and that they should win because they proved the false statement was made, even though they did not prove that the false statement was made by the blogger who knew or should have known the statement was false.


The 9th Circuit opinion, citing many other examples, disagreed with Obsidian and Padrick’s analysis that the blogger’s statement was about a purely private matter involving nothing of public concern [“Cox’s allegations in this case are similarly a matter of public concern.”] The Opinion summarized WHY the blogger’s statement involved a matter of public concern:


“Padrick was appointed by a United States Bankruptcy Court as the Chapter 11 trustee of a company that had defrauded its investors through a Ponzi scheme. That company retained him and Obsidian to advise it shortly before it filed for bankruptcy.

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


This “public concern” rationale protects all sorts of potentially defamatory statements. Any one of us already has expressed statements relating to gold and silver being manipulated on the COMEX, about knowing stooges helping perpetrate the massive fraud and manipulation, that there are those in the pocket of the fraudsters who actively make their living spouting the constant stream of lies about gold and silver manipulation, etc.

We should all rejoice at the 9th Circuit’s opinion, since at this point, it is beyond dispute that what we talk about here, metals, manipulation, currencies, central banking, all of it, are matters of public concern. Even that evil man JC is fair game for comment, because he actively is involved in the dialogue supporting the ongoing manipulative schemes. We all now have some protections that before we did not have.


In delivering another stunning victory to the blogger, on the issue whether the statement involved a matter of public concern, the Court said this:


“Because Cox's blog post addressed a matter of public concern, even assuming that Gertz is limited to such speech, the district court should have instructed the jury that it could not find Cox liable for defamation unless it found that she acted negligently. See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 350. The court also should have instructed the jury that it could not award presumed damages unless it found that Cox acted with actual malice. Id. at 349.”


Wow, what an amazing, crystal clear victory for the blogger!


The Court did give Obsidian and Padrick a slight victory, of no real consequence, because the Court found that neither Obsidian nor Padrick were public officials. The blogger argued that “the jury therefore should have been instructed that, under the Sullivan standard, it could impose liability for defamation only if she acted with actual malice. [citation].” The Court disagreed. To this is a big , because the victories on the other arguments meant that the Court had no choice but to reverse the judgment and send it back to the trial court.


The Opinion wiped out the huge judgment for Obsidian and Padrick, and requires them to once again, have a trial, in front of a jury, where the trial judge has to instruct the jury that the jury can only find the statements defamatory IF Obsidian and Padrick PROVE that the blogger knew or should have known the statement was false. That is a very difficult standard to prove, far harder than a strict liability standard, which has no such requirement at all.


What will happen at the re-trial? Well, first, will there even BE a retrial under this heightened standard that Obsidian and Padrick must meet?

Who knows. If there is a re-trial, what evidence will Obsidian and Padrick bring to bear on the question as to the fault of the blogger in making the statement?

How can they prove Ms. Cox knew the statement was false? 

How can they prove that she should have known the statement was false?

Isn’t it more likely that Ms. Cox was spouting an opinion based on inferences of wrongdoing, which means that there is proof that she had some basis to make her statement, or, in other words, there is at least some evidentiary basis to support her defense to the defamation claims, unlike what she faced in the earlier trial where the only defense was that she did not make the statement at all?


More realistically, Obsidian and Padrick will slink off into the distance and never appear again. How many thousands of dollars did Obsidian and Padrick spend, for naught, on this case taking the blogger to trial?

What an utter waste of time and money, only to end up with the blogger not only winning, but convincingly so, and paving the way for the rest of the blogging community to enjoy freedom in posting with lessened fear of being sued! Hooray is what I say!


I have been wanting to weigh in on this concept for a long time, and I thank TF for bringing this case to my attention. He graciously agreed to allow me to offer up this analysis, and I thank him profusely for the opportunity to be of service."

Source of Post
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3115701/posts

More on the Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Case Media

http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/

Blogger Crystal Cox Extortion Allegations; Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS BACK Crystal Cox Extortion Allegations; Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS BACK Against Extortion Allegations in Judicial Ruling

 PORT TOWNSEND, Wash. - Feb. 2, 2014 - PRLog -- Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox FIGHTS BACK, against Federal Appellate Judges Stating;

“Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations
and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction”

Cox has not been found guilty by a court of law, had a formal investigation nor any kind of due process on extortion allegations. Therefore an esteemed, highly "reliable source" such as a 3 Judges on an Appellate Panel, should not make allegations of speculated crimes of the Defendant, especially quoting a New York Times journalist as the source of said opinion, or allegations.

I have NO ISSUE with those Speaking Critical of Me, that is your Constitutional Right.

I do not care about being personally Criticized,
I care about
Judges obeying the Law and obeying the
Constitution of the United States of Amerca.

It is one thing for a journalist and a blogger to have equal rights in reporting the news, this is important. However when corruption stories are told or "broke" by these outlets, the authorities then need to perform a formal investigation before a judicial ruling makes those same allegations, as a MATTER OF LAW and Legal Precedent.

I Don't Care Who Likes Me and Who Does Not.

I care about our Judges obeying the Law,
and Respecting our Constitutional Rights.

Crystal Cox via her attorney Eugene Volokh, UCLA Constitutional Law Professor filed a Motion to Rehear / A motion to REDACT the allegations against Cox that are hearsay and rumor maliciously reported by New York Times Journalist David Carr.

To Read this Motion; Click Below

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit

A Few Quotes from Eugene Volokh's Motion to Rehear (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit);

"A judicial assertion of misconduct by a named person, even a judicial assertion modified with the word “apparently,” might be based on the record in a case, or on authoritative findings by another court.

But it ought not be based on a newspaper column, which was written without the benefit of cross-examination, sworn testimony, or the other safeguards of the civil justice process. The claims in the columnist’s assertion are neither facts found by a fact finder nor facts subject to judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201."

Link to "Motion to Rehear" Filed by Eugene Volokh;
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkib1NraEFFb1Rac2M/edit?usp=sharing

Crystal L. Cox, Online Statement regarding and in support of the Motion to Rehear, to Clarify or Redact Courts statement, “Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction” and the surrounding media and corruption.

Click Below
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sfa6KPy3ur6pBOcUF64CfvRFKM-n0ASMWhpUPC4G43Q/edit

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

Bloggers have the same Constitutional rights as Journalists Due to 2014 Obsidian v. Cox Free Speech Case in a Ninth Circuit Appeal.

" Federal courts have ruled that bloggers have the same Constitutional rights as Journalists. In 2014 The Ninth Circuit Federal Court ruled in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox that even though someone might not write for the “institutional press,” they’re entitled to all the protections the Constitution grants journalists. "

Source and Full Article
https://www.bobandsteve.com/blog/2018/10/17/vincent-squire-loves-free-speech-unless-its-about-him

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox
Port Townsend Washington

"U.S. Court : Bloggers deserve freedom of the press protection" Crystal Cox Port Townsend Free Speech Case 2014 Ninth Circuit WIN.

"

By Kevin O'Keefe on January 18, 2014

As reported by Dan Levine (@FedCourtJunkie), the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled yesterday that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist.

A bankruptcy trustee and Obsidian Finance Group sued a Crystal Cox for defamation over a 2011 blog post she wrote accusing them of tax fraud. A lower court found that because Cox failed to prove she was a journalist she was not entitled to the same freedom of the press protection. The 9th Circuit found it didn’t matter if Cox was a traditional reporter. Per 9th Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz, writing for the Court:

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

UCLA School of Law professor and blogger, Eugene Volokh (@VolokhC), pointed out the importance of not distinguishing bloggers from traditional press today in the world where online content dominates.

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.

What protection do bloggers now have? If blogging on a matter of public interest or about a public figure, the plaintiff will need to show, at least in the 9th Circuit, that the blogger knew what they were publishing was false or published it with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false. As for Cox, the plaintiffs can proceed with their lawsuit back in the trial court. They’ll need to prove knowledge that the post was false or with negligence on Cox’s part."

Source

https://kevin.lexblog.com/2014/01/18/bloggers-receive-freedom-of-the-press-protection-u-s-court-of-appeals/

First Federal Court of Appeals Case that SPECIFICALLY Protects the Rights of ALL Bloggers, Citizen Journalists, and Whistle Blowers. By Reverend Crystal Cox of Port Townsend Washington

USE Your Voice.

Start a Blog, Make Videos.

Report on what is happening in Your Neck of the Woods.

Report on What Happened to You.

You have had EQUAL Rights Legally by a High Court Precedent since January of 2014.

My First Amendment Court Case was the First of it’s kind to get a High Court decision that Gave ALL Bloggers, Citizen Journalist, and Whistle blowers EQUAL rights to that of the highest paid Journalist in the highest of institutional press.

Now Retraction Laws, Shield Laws, and the First Amendment APPLIES to ALL Bloggers, Citizen Journalists and Whistleblowers EQUAL to the highest paid Journalists of the biggest media outlets in the world.

All sides fought me, threatened me, belittled me, defamed me, pressured me to quit, harassed me, gang stalked me, investigators followed me, my emails were hacked and watched daily, and I was under constant threat for years and years to hold onto this Legal Precedent for YOU to Have YOUR Voice.

In my court case, Obsidian v. Cox there was No Criminal Extortion. This was made up by the Opposition to attempt to Stop me from proceeding to the high court. And to attempt to suppress ALL of  your voices as a matter of Law. It was a Set Up by a group of attorneys, judges and big media with varying agendas.

For those who believe there was Extortion in the Crystal Cox Case, ask yourself Why None of these Court Officials, Attorneys, Judges, Cops, FBI Agents, Homeland Security, or any party private or public filed ANY criminal charges in any way so that there could be a True Investigation as to the allegations against me by Big Media. Large Law Firms, Groups of Attorneys and High Court Judges.  This was ALL to Deny the constitutional rights of Citizen Journalists, Investigative Bloggers, and Whistleblowers and to attempt to discredit the true to the best of my knowledge reporting I was doing, in that case, on Portland Oregon Judicial and Bankruptcy Court Corruption.

There was no Lies. All I reported was True to the best of my knowledge and remains to be true though I have removed the blogs per a lower court settlement.  I had got the Precedent that changed the world. I had made it to my Finish Line, my Goal and from there I let go of the battle to bring down Portland Oregon Bankruptcy Corruption.

I exposed Corruption for decades to the absolute best of my ability and with the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the best of my knowledge and ability.  Now it is your turn to TELL YOUR STORY.

Many of the Articles out there about my Case, are Distorted, Jaded, Biased, Hate Filled and Flat Out False. There are some aspects to many of the news articles about my case that I do like, so it’s worth reading through to find the golden nuggets.

The First Amendment court case, Obsidian vs. Cox is cited around the world in courts large and small. This Legal Precedence has changed the world and gave YOU a platform to ROAR, so Do IT. ROAR.

I was Pro Se in the Lower Court. Meaning I represented myself, acting as my own attorney. I did so for one I did not have money for an attorney, and I did so as I knew that an attorney would force me to settle, to bow out and therefore STOP the case moving to the highest court possible and forcing a high court ruling as to what rights bloggers have / had as compared to the rights of the institutional press.

Remember that when one goes to the Ninth Circuit, attorney or not, there is no legal case citing or information allowed that was not stated, named, created in the lower court case. So my attorney could not enter new case law, but could only use what I had already used.  I chose Eugene Volokh deliberately for this task.

“Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law Professor

who represented Crystal Cox pro bono, affirmed:"

“This case is THE FIRST ONE from a federal court of appeals that specifically protects the rights of bloggers."

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/01/22/court-rules-bloggers-have-first-amendment-protection/

There are Many Articles and Much Chaos around my Case. What rises to the top and Lights up Undeniably is that ALL Now Have Equal Rights to REPORT the News, and to “Break the News” even if no one else is talking about. You are the News. FIND YOUR VOICE and Tell Your Story.

~ Reverend Crystal Cox

(Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox)