BREAKING: 9th Circuit Rules Bloggers Get Press Protection - The Crystal Cox Story!

[laserhaas]

Last edited Sun Jan 19, 2014, 07:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: 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.




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.

Cox wrote a series of blog posts, including one that accused Padrick of tax fraud in failing to pay $174,000 in taxes owed by Summit. U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez in Oregon rejected Cox's First Amendment defenses, and a jury awarded Padrick and Obsidian a combined $2.5 million.

However, the 9th Circuit found that the tax fraud allegations were a matter of public concern, which means Obsidian had to show evidence of Cox's negligent behavior.


Read more: http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/01/17/usa-blogger-ruling-idINL2N0KR1GB20140117

---

Previously, yours truly has benefited from the good faith works of Blogger Crystal Cox, who has helped get the word out concerning federal bankruptcy fraud and corruption. Crystal has reported much on this plaintiff's saga around the eToys bankruptcy case, corrupt US Attorney Colm Connolly, who was secretly a Goldman Sachs and Bain Capital law firm (www.MNAT.com) attorney from 1999 to 2001 (the very time Mitt Romney claims to be "retroactively" retired from Bain Capital.

Crystal Cox was abused by the rich and powerful and was burdened with $2 million lawsuit loss.

What the Court over Crystal Cox said, is that she wasn't entitle to the same freedom of the press protections; because she was a blogger - and Bloggers aren't the same as main stream media. But the 9th Circuit says this is not correct and has overturned the decision - as to the part that Bloggers don't get freedom of the press protections.

I've got a previous thread here at DU - I'll find later;
meanwhile - here's the story from my DailyKos article in 2011.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/26/1049055/-Volokh-Goes-pro-bono-for-Crystal-Cox#

Most of us are now aware that an Oregon Judge purportedly drew a line in the sand between "journalist" and "blogger" - in the $2.5 million dollar award against self proclaimed "Investigative Journalist" Crystal Cox. (See Seattle Times story (here)). While there are vast arguments about what Crystal Cox did or did not do - a noteworthy team has magnamously stepped forward and volunteered to defend her case (and thus BLOG lines too). KUDOs much to that of UCLA Professor Volokh (of the Volokh Conspiracy BLOG) and his affiliated local counsel, Benjamin Souede of Angeli Law Group LLC.

[br]

You can see Volokh's public announce of December 23, 2003, as it best details the issue far beyond the petty remarks, snipes, banter, hyperbole and purported unbiased criticisms of Crystal Cox for being a bad writer - etc. Aptly framed to be a story in point Professor Volokh entitled the announcing;

"New Pro Bono Case on Whether First Amendment Libel Rules are Limited to Institutional Media Defendants"

and Professor Eugene Volokh states the "real" case on point in 1 paragraph;

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) held that even private-figure libel plaintiffs (1) may not recover proven compensatory damages unless the defendant was at least negligent in its investigation, and (2) may not recover presumed or punitive damages unless the defendant knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded a known and substantial risk that the statements were false. The District Court in Obsidian Finance held that the defendant was not entitled to the protection of Gertz, because she was not a member of the “media.” But as I’ve argued in my forthcoming University of Pennsylvania Law Review article, Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or for the Press as a Technology? From the Framing to Today, the First Amendment has historically been understood as protecting people who use mass communications technology equally, whether or not they are members of the institutional media. I much look forward to litigating this case, and, I hope, getting the District Court decision reversed.

[br][hr][br]

Congratulations Professor Volokh and counsel Benjamin Souede of Angeli Law Group LLC.

and CONGRATULATIONS - Crystal Cox

Go prove that they are the bad guys you said they were.

A great day for the little gal beating Goliath's

[X_Digger]

1. Awesome! n/t

[laserhaas]

2. Thanks - it sucks the news is out late on Fri - long weekend

But it is FANTASTIC news - none the less!

[X_Digger]

3. I'm sure it'll get more eyes tomorrow morning. Probably more coverage in other outlets, too. n/t

[OnyxCollie]

4. K&R. nt

[freshwest]

5. So glad to hear this! Public records are a truth and should never be suppressed. We paid for it! n/t

[PeoViejo]

6. This will remove the intimidation factor that Bloggers have been facing.

Expect peeps to be even more aggressive now.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. This is worrying, though:

Cox's blogging activities have attracted their share of controversy. According to the court's opinion, Cox has a history of making allegations of fraud and other illegal activities "and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction."

That's not part of free speech, or journalism.

But you're saying "one cheer for Citizens United", right? That's the Supreme Court decision this judgement quotes for "a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable".

[Dr. Strange]

14. I think it's the right decision.

The court isn't saying she can get away with extortionate behavior--just that Obsidian has to prove it just as if she was a journalist, that the fact that she's "just a blogger" doesn't mean that the legal standard should be different.

[laserhaas]

15. Obsidian's problem is - they do have "Conflict of Interest" issues.

They won't dare retry the case with so much media attention upon it now.

Best to let "THAT" conflict dog stay where it lay!

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. This is great news ...

as it provides judicial recognition of "Blogger" as "Journalists"; however, it should/could be of concern for bloggers, as they (we?) now have a responsibility to not post hair-brained, unsupported, conjecture.

I'm thinking now Alex Jones and Glenn Beck (I can't think of any Left equivalent) has a journalistic duty to stop with tying any and everyone to their master conspiracy theories they spin, as they can now be sued.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. On the contrary, Cox was trying to make money from her hair-brained, unsupported, conjecture

and this decision is good news for her.

This is how Crystal Cox’s scam works generally: Cox calls herself an investigative blogger / journalist. She posts a bunch of negative stuff about you on the internet. Then she buys a bunch of domain names about you, your family, and your business to make sure all her posts are at the top of a Google search. But lucky for you, Cox also happens to be a “reputation management specialist.” Cox then offers to sell you “reputation management services” to clean it all up to the tune of $2500 a month.

As Carlos Miller aptly put it, Crystal Cox “is the cyber equivalent of the mob goons who firebomb your business, before demanding protection money.”
...
You may remember that over the weekend I wrote a piece about Crystal Cox, when Cox went after Marc Randazza’s three year old daughter after offering to sell Randazza “reputation management” services which he declined.

Yes, you read that right – apparently Crystal Cox went after a three year old when Randazza wouldn’t buy reputation management services.

http://phillylawblog.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/the-evolution-of-crystal-cox-anatomy-of-a-scammer/

Randazza did get the domain and blog names in his and his famly's names handed over to him: http://randazza.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/this-domain-name-seized-from-crystal-cox/

In any event, for purposes of the Policy the Panel finds the Respondent’s intention, as reflected by
the record, was never to solely provide, through her websites, speech critical of the Complainant.
Rather, her objective in both registering and using the disputed names was apparently to engage in a
rather sinister and tenacious scheme to extort money from the Complainant. Specifically, the
Respondent first posted negative and false commentary on her websites that was intentionally calculated to
injure the Complainant’s on-line reputation and disrupt the Complainant’s business conducted through his
law firm. Thereafter, the Respondent used those sites in a manner that apparently optimized their ranking
on the Google search engine in order to increase their visibility and prominence on search results yielded
through a Google search of the Complainant, thus likely exacerbating the injury caused to the Complainant.
Once all this occurred, the Respondent then offered her reputational management services to the
Complainant through which, for a considerable fee, she would remediate the Complainant’s on-line
reputation by eliminating all the negative and false commentary of her own making and presumably also
ceasing her use of the disputed domains names. Basically, for a price, she would undo the injury to the
Complainant for which she was responsible for having created in the first place. This egregious
conduct clearly constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/randazza-v-cox-decision-d2012-1525-highlighted.pdf

But this decision is saying that it doesn't matter what your purpose is on the internet (extortion, conspiracy theories, or actual journalism) you get the same protection as a genuine journalist - that the complainant has to show you acted out of malice, or negligently.

[freshwest]

10. Mercury News has also picked up the story:

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24940768/court-bloggers-have-first-amendment-protections

[ProudProgressiveNow]

11. Great news! nt

[laserhaas]

12. Don't pick on Crystal for not going to the Blogger's Ethics school (which is WHERE by the way)!

She did her country a great service and has suffered much;
in the causes against injustice.

Being there - on our eToys case - long before anyone else in the media!

[laserhaas]

13. This case was a victory for U.S. to blog and say what's true; and not fear injustice.

As for the C.U. thingy - it is a separate issue altogether

[laserhaas]

16. Professor Jonathan Turley's 1st Amendment Blog discusses Crystal Cox's case

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/01/20/federal-court-bloggers-have-same-first-amendment-rights-as-journalists/#comment-748196

[laserhaas]

17. Here's my D at the orange realm with links to other (prior) D's on the matter

Including banter with an attorney who spurns my every thought and breadth of air.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/20/1271130/-JT-s-Blog-9th-Cir-Reversal-Crystal-Blog-Entitled-to-Freedom-of-Press-Protection