Tonus
12-08-2011, 01:24 PM
And it's a $2.5 million ruling. (http://news.yahoo.com/federal-court-rules-investigative-blogger-not-journalist-orders-210406647.html)
Federal court rules investigative blogger is not a journalist, orders her to pay $2.5 million in defamation lawsuit
Obsidian Finance Group won its defamation lawsuit against blogger Crystal L. Cox this morning, largely because she was determined not to be a member of the media. Cox runs a variety of investigative blogs, many of which focus on financial issues. Her blog Obsidian Finance Sucks accused the company and executive Kevin Padrick of tax and governmental fraud.
After receiving a cease-and-desist letter, Cox refused citing herself as a journalist protected by Anti-Slapp laws. “Yes I am a Self-Proclaimed Investigative Blogger and under Supreme Court Decisions, under the law as making a living as an Investigative Blogger, Gathering News, Taking Interviews, and Reporting on these Stories I am Media [sic],” she has argued. “I am an Independent News Media. I am a Public Forum, my blogs do go out in news feeds and I am Legally Media [sic].”
But Judge Marco Hernandez , who presided over the case, disagrees. He wrote that, among other things, Cox’s lack of “any education in journalism…any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity…” and alleged failure to contact “’the other side’ to get both sides of the story” do not qualify her as a member of the media. Hernandez also noted that journalistic shield laws don’t cover the alleged defamation statements attributed to Cox. She has been ordered to pay Obsidian Finance $2.5 million in damages.
Cox tells us she plans to appeal the decision. She also believes bloggers need to be recognized as journalists to protect them from this type of legal action. “A blogger is a journalist, or reporting in my opinion, when they take interviews, get tips emailed, get and research documents, study cases and depositions, talk to those personally involved, and post their story just as a traditional reporter.” She also adds that bloggers “oftentimes [are] without the limitations of having to please your advertisers, or your local politician or corporate machine.”
I think that this is the first step in a very interesting battle that will develop more fully in the future. Are bloggers technically/legally journalists, and does the mere fact of having a blog shield a person from liability for making defamatory and potentially damaging statements?
I think her statements hurt her case, in that she describes herself as a "self-proclaimed" journalist and constantly capitalizes the word "media" as if it's a specific individual or organization. It makes her come off as being somewhat deluded and out of touch. You cannot disclaim liability by proclamation, and it's difficult to take a claim of membership seriously when the person making the claim doesn't seem to know what it is she purports to be a member of.
Still, as blogs and bloggers become more popular and more influential, it will be natural for their targets to fight back with "they're not journalists." It's a revisiting of the "nerds in mommy's basement" charge that was constantly thrown at bloggers when they were breaking important stories, such as CBS's infamous Fake-Memo-Gate. At some point these issues will need to be made more clear, particularly from the legal perspective.
Edit to add: the current update (http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2011/12/so-if-i-am-not-media-and-dont-have.html) on her site does her no favors, either. She strikes me as a very very bad test case, if you are on the side of giving bloggers more freedom and more protection...
(It also brings up a point about her claim that bloggers are less burdened by outside influences-- how unbiased can someone be when they blog from a site that they deliberated named "Obsidian Finance Sucks"?)
Anyway, this is the first three paragraphs of her post. The number of logical fallacies that she manages to fit into such a short span is staggering.
I mean it's just a blog right?
Seriously I am not defending posting wrong information. If I got it wrong, send me a link and ASK for a Retraction. This is prudent at the very least, don't ya think?
See, when you sue me it ends up getting tons more media, I mean "Real Media" to my story claiming injustice in the US Bankruptcy Court. And Just think all those documents, those motions I submitted and all that Blather is now in the hands of .. well EVERYONE, Everywhere. People I never Would have reached via my Little Ol' Blog.
Federal court rules investigative blogger is not a journalist, orders her to pay $2.5 million in defamation lawsuit
Obsidian Finance Group won its defamation lawsuit against blogger Crystal L. Cox this morning, largely because she was determined not to be a member of the media. Cox runs a variety of investigative blogs, many of which focus on financial issues. Her blog Obsidian Finance Sucks accused the company and executive Kevin Padrick of tax and governmental fraud.
After receiving a cease-and-desist letter, Cox refused citing herself as a journalist protected by Anti-Slapp laws. “Yes I am a Self-Proclaimed Investigative Blogger and under Supreme Court Decisions, under the law as making a living as an Investigative Blogger, Gathering News, Taking Interviews, and Reporting on these Stories I am Media [sic],” she has argued. “I am an Independent News Media. I am a Public Forum, my blogs do go out in news feeds and I am Legally Media [sic].”
But Judge Marco Hernandez , who presided over the case, disagrees. He wrote that, among other things, Cox’s lack of “any education in journalism…any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity…” and alleged failure to contact “’the other side’ to get both sides of the story” do not qualify her as a member of the media. Hernandez also noted that journalistic shield laws don’t cover the alleged defamation statements attributed to Cox. She has been ordered to pay Obsidian Finance $2.5 million in damages.
Cox tells us she plans to appeal the decision. She also believes bloggers need to be recognized as journalists to protect them from this type of legal action. “A blogger is a journalist, or reporting in my opinion, when they take interviews, get tips emailed, get and research documents, study cases and depositions, talk to those personally involved, and post their story just as a traditional reporter.” She also adds that bloggers “oftentimes [are] without the limitations of having to please your advertisers, or your local politician or corporate machine.”
I think that this is the first step in a very interesting battle that will develop more fully in the future. Are bloggers technically/legally journalists, and does the mere fact of having a blog shield a person from liability for making defamatory and potentially damaging statements?
I think her statements hurt her case, in that she describes herself as a "self-proclaimed" journalist and constantly capitalizes the word "media" as if it's a specific individual or organization. It makes her come off as being somewhat deluded and out of touch. You cannot disclaim liability by proclamation, and it's difficult to take a claim of membership seriously when the person making the claim doesn't seem to know what it is she purports to be a member of.
Still, as blogs and bloggers become more popular and more influential, it will be natural for their targets to fight back with "they're not journalists." It's a revisiting of the "nerds in mommy's basement" charge that was constantly thrown at bloggers when they were breaking important stories, such as CBS's infamous Fake-Memo-Gate. At some point these issues will need to be made more clear, particularly from the legal perspective.
Edit to add: the current update (http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2011/12/so-if-i-am-not-media-and-dont-have.html) on her site does her no favors, either. She strikes me as a very very bad test case, if you are on the side of giving bloggers more freedom and more protection...
(It also brings up a point about her claim that bloggers are less burdened by outside influences-- how unbiased can someone be when they blog from a site that they deliberated named "Obsidian Finance Sucks"?)
Anyway, this is the first three paragraphs of her post. The number of logical fallacies that she manages to fit into such a short span is staggering.
I mean it's just a blog right?
Seriously I am not defending posting wrong information. If I got it wrong, send me a link and ASK for a Retraction. This is prudent at the very least, don't ya think?
See, when you sue me it ends up getting tons more media, I mean "Real Media" to my story claiming injustice in the US Bankruptcy Court. And Just think all those documents, those motions I submitted and all that Blather is now in the hands of .. well EVERYONE, Everywhere. People I never Would have reached via my Little Ol' Blog.