Oregon Blogger Isn't a Journalist, Court Imposes $2.5M Judgement

[kevinalexbrown]

The article (which rightfully provides the original decision) ignores the subsequent paragraph:

Second, even if she were otherwise entitled to those protections, O.R.S. 44.530(3)specifically provides that "[t]he provisions of O.R.S. 44.520(1) do not apply with respect to the content or source of allegedly defamatory information, in [a] civil action for defamation wherein the defendant asserts a defense based on the content or source of such information." Because this case is a civil action for defamation, defendant cannot rely on the media shield law.

This changes things somewhat. The article says "she's entitled to those protections." This says, even if she were, here's why it doesn't apply.

NB: I think the settlement sucks, but that doesn't mean the judge was the complete idiot the article made him out to be.

[saulrh]

It's worth noting that the guy that wrote the corresponding law for the State of Washington explicitly blames obsolete laws for the nonapplicability of the shield law: "Oregon's law was probably written before blogging was accounted for." [1] He goes on to say that she probably would still have been judged against, since withholding the source means she can't prove her claims are factual, but that she still should have gotten that protection.

[1] http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/12/unlike_or...

[Cushman]

It doesnt really matter. Whether this woman is liable for defamation or not, the judge's opinion on that law is important. Precedent now says bloggers are not journalists in Oregon.

[taylorbuley]

So-called "actual malice" is really, really hard to prove.

If that bar was met in this case, then -- as you say -- regardless of journalistic status you've done something wrong.

[nknight]

Actually, it does. If the judge was going to find the media shield law inapplicable because it's a civil action for defamation, he did not need to reach the much hairier question of whether her blog was a "medium of communication".

Judges are supposed to avoid making decisions that are broader than necessary to resolve a case. This judge has unnecessarily set a dangerous precedent.

[fleitz]

"Representing herself in court, Cox had argued..."

Coders and bloggers are good at what they do and in those spheres it would generally be a good idea to defer to them for advice, however, in the sphere of law it's generally a good idea to defer to someone with expertise in that field.

[jamesaguilar]

> Coders and bloggers are good at what they do

Not this one. Read the blog post on which the decision is based (http://www.bankruptcycorruption.com/2010/12/kevin-padrick-of...). She sounds positively unhinged.

That doesn't mean she should owe this company $2.5 million. But this doesn't read like the work of a journalist or someone with a source. It reads like the ravings of a lunatic. I don't have near enough evidence to make a final judgment one way or another but this certainly smells more like defamation than whistle-blowing.

[hristov]

It says there she had blogs about the legal industry, so it is likely that she is a lawyer. Of course it is usually not a good idea to represent yourself even if you are a lawyer, but maybe she could not afford representation.

Hopefully the ACLU would take up her cause on appeal.

[thetron]

_Especially_ when going up against a law firm in court!

[tdmackey]

By representing herself and appearing largely ignorant to the law she not only lost the case but essentially made it so that the judge could rule no other way. Ignoring the sensationalist article and looking closer at the actual trial documents as linked http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/obsidian-finance-group-v-... You can see that in many of her responses instead of trying to make a legal argument she just rants about how much she hates the plaintiffs and thinks they are idiots and states things like "This connection is further reason as to why Defendant [sic] Crystal L. Cox Feels [sic] that Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance is involved in a plot to kill her."

In addition, she replies to the platiniff "So I want to Let you know and Obsidian Finance that I am now offering PR Services and Search Engine Management Services starting at $2500 a month to promote Law Firms... Finance Companies.. and to protect online reputations and promote businesses.." Which the legal firm didn't take kindly to, "It could hardly be clearer that Ms. Cox is attempting to use her outrageous and utterly false payments about plantiffs as leverage to extort a payment from them."

Also, she ignored a deposition in Montana for which the plaintiffs are requesting the court place sanctions on her which if she didn't would also have made it trivial to move the case to another district court where some weird wording in the Oregon shield law wouldn't have mattered.

The Judge probably wanted to hang himself after reading her motions.

[bestes]

Is it illegal for a judge to think? If one side presents a really bad case, do they have to lose even if they are right?

I've experienced this myself, so maybe my comments should be thrown out as biased.

[wtallis]

This seems to be a case of a judge ignoring a few words in order to be able to misinterpret a law. Oregon's media shield law applies to people who are "connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public", and defines "any medium of communication" thus:

“Medium of communication” has its ordinary meaning and includes, but is not limited to, any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.

Apparently, the judge didn't spot the "but is not limited to" part of that definition.

(The text of the relevant laws: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/044.html)

[tedunangst]

As kevinalexbrown noted, this also seems to be a case of people ignoring the next paragraph of the decision.

[nknight]

Yep. This is not a limitation of the law, this is a deeply unimaginative judge. The "ordinary meaning" of "medium of communication" is extremely broad, and even if implicitly narrowed to the general context of the statute, easily includes most bloggers.

[taylorbuley]

Regardless of shield laws, you absolutely cannot commit libel in public writing.

There is a reason why Journalism Law is a first-semester course at any respectable j-school.

[delinka]

"...you absolutely cannot commit libel in public writing..."

Does that mean that it's absolutely impossible to commit libel in public writing?

Or does it mean that one "cannot" because there are dire consequences?

A la "you can never put too much water in a nuclear reactor."

[fauigerzigerk]

Regardless of any particular case, in my opinion, civil law is a complete farce everywhere in the world (as far as I know).

The problem is that the risk of litigation is sometimes totally disproportionate. While one side may risk a small budget overrun in their legal department, the other side might find their life in ruins for decades, including things like paying for their children's education.

I think this needs a constitutional amendment urgently.

[bandushrew]

If this is upheld, the existing 'old world' media organisations just became gatekeepers to a very useful status.

We need to start a Bloggers Media Network.

[mikkom]

> but because she wasn't employed by an official media establishment.

What the hell is "official" media establishment? It seems that the judge is saying thet there are separate "official" and "unofficial" establisments but if that is the case, who decides what is official and what is not?

[forensic]

It's determined by the opinions they present. For instance, if the journalist is saying there is a conspiracy, then they're a conspiracy theorist.

[tedunangst]

The decision says nothing about being unable to create a new network. It says a network consisting of one person is not a network.