Page 1 of 1

Blogger Fined

Posted: 12-07-2011 05:35 PM
by voguy
Crystal Cox, Oregon Blogger, Isn't a Journalist, Concludes U.S. Court--Imposes $2.5 Million Judgement on Her
By Curtis Cartier Tue., Dec. 6 2011 at 6:00 AM
Categories: Law & Courts, Media



​A U.S. District Court judge in Portland has drawn a line in the sand between "journalist" and "blogger." And for Crystal Cox, a woman on the latter end of that comparison, the distinction has cost her $2.5 million.

Speaking to Seattle Weekly, Cox says that the judgement could have impacts on bloggers everywhere.

"This should matter to everyone who writes on the Internet," she says.

Cox runs several law-centric blogs, like industrywhistleblower.com, judicialhellhole.com, and obsidianfinancesucks.com, and was sued by investment firm Obsidian Finance Group in January for defamation, to the tune of $10 million, for writing several blog posts that were highly critical of the firm and its co-founder Kevin Padrick.

Representing herself in court, Cox had argued that her writing was a mixture of facts, commentary and opinion (like a million other blogs on the web) and moved to have the case dismissed. Dismissed it wasn't, however, and after throwing out all but one of the blog posts cited by Obsidian Financial, the judge ruled that this single post was indeed defamatory because it was presented, essentially, as more factual in tone than her other posts, and therefore a reasonable person could conclude it was factual.

MORE ON STORY

Posted: 12-08-2011 02:11 PM
by Fan
Hmm don't know the case, but if I published a booklet with defamatory statements I would be liable for it... this is old law trying to be applied in a modern time. Should bloggers be journalists? Even journalists can defame and be sued unless they can provide sources and facts to back up their assertions, no?

Posted: 12-08-2011 04:41 PM
by bobbo
Fan--I'm no expert==but you are essentially correct. But it highlights knowing the difference between an opinion assertion vs a fact assertion. The law is different on the two giving more protection for the former than the later.

Free Speech vs Defamation. Pro's and Con's.

In court===you better have your links lined up.

Posted: 12-08-2011 05:05 PM
by Fan
I have heard the saying "it is not defamation if it is true" (and you can prove it).

Posted: 12-08-2011 05:59 PM
by voguy
The issue would be "proving it" or having evidence that will hold up in court.

The second side of this is if someone wants to make your life hell, all they have to do is "slap" you repeatedly, forcing you to defend. Such is the tactic with a lot of politicians in the U.S.

Posted: 12-08-2011 07:13 PM
by bobbo
defamation is true or false not determined by whether or not it is true or false. Truth is a defense to a claim for damages. Different thing.

Its more than just words.