| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| A Chill on Bloggers; Bloggers Can Be Sued for Defamation According to Judge |
| 2011-12-08 |
| Bloggers beware! The new media and bloggers are not considered journalists. Judge says journalists have a code of ethics and protections. Who would have known journalists have ethics? This has been the traditional assault by newspapers against blogs: that 'freedom of the press' applies to them and not to blogs, since they own a printing press and bloggers do not. The counter-argument (and correct one, IMHO) is that the Framers intended freedom of the press to include the pamphleteers who papered our early republic with their issues. Bloggers are the latest version of those people. A ruling by a federal judge in Oregon should send chills down your spine if you're a blogger. Crystal L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Mont., was sued for defamation by attorney Kevin Padrick when she posted online that he was a thug and a thief during the handling of bankruptcy proceedings by him and Obsidian Finance Group LLC. Crystal, by the way, did not do herself or bloggers any favors, since she insisted on representing herself in these legal proceedings. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Padrick, of Bend, Ore., was a trustee in a bankruptcy case involving Summit Accommodators, a company that helped property owners conduct real estate transactions in a way to limit taxes. Three executives face federal fraud and money laundering indictments. Cox said she considered herself a journalist, producing more than 400 blogs over the past five years, with a proprietary technique to get her postings on the top of search engines where they get the most notice. All well and good, Crystal, but even if you're a journalist, you have to be careful not to defame people. But last Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez found that as a blogger, Cox was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets. Media experts said that the ruling would have little effect on the definition of journalism, but it does cast a shadow on those who work in nontraditional media since it highlights the lack of case law that could protect them and the fact that current state shield laws for journalists are not covering recent developments in online media. This is going to be appealed. Let's hope Crystal gets good help. The amicus curiae briefs will flood in. I expect the USSC or the Appeals court to rule in favor of bloggers. |
| Posted by:JohnQC |
| #5 I don't know... I really don't trust the reporting on this. It doesn't really sound like it's about blogging at all. It sounds as if Ms. Cox made arguably libelous statements about Mr. Padrick, and then tried to invoke a 'shield law' to protect an 'anonymous source.' Calling yourself a journalist shouldn't be a free ticket to defame a private person. If Ms. Cox had evidence that her statements were true, couldn't she have pleaded that? |
| Posted by: Free Radical 2011-12-08 22:05 |
| #4 Since there is nothing that says one person is a journalist and the other is not this cannot hold up. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2011-12-08 20:42 |
| #3 Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to mention the "personal opinions" concept at the top of this blog somewhere so some numnutz like Wronghaven doesn't try to make an example out of anyone here. |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-12-08 13:53 |
| #2 "cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets" And where exactly in our Constitution does it say news outlets get special privileges above those of ordinary citizens? (Hint: it's not in the First Amendment.) Who published it shouldn't matter. It's either defamation, or it isn't. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2011-12-08 13:03 |
| #1 it will be overturned. All she had to do was say "IMHO" - or "in my opinion.....". Then it is not defamatory |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-12-08 12:34 |