Court Rules in defamation case : "blogger is no journalist"
A U.S. District Court judge in Portland, Ore., ruled that a blogger who wrote about an investment firm that subsequently accused her of defamation must pay the company $2.5 million because she’s a blogger who doesn’t legally qualify as a journalist.
[...]
Despite Oregon’s legal definition of “any medium of communication,” Judge Marco A. Hernandez disagreed with Cox, saying that “although [the] defendant is a self-proclaimed ‘investigative blogger’ and defines herself as ‘media,’ the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law in the first
Judge in defamation case rules blogger is no journalist
(Reuters) - A federal judge has ruled that a Montana blogger was not acting as a journalist when she posted inflammatory statements about an Oregon attorney and that she is not protected from a $2.5 million defamation judgment.
The ruling last week by U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez is seen by outside observers as potentially having chilling effects on other bloggers.
The case stems from a lawsuit filed on January 14 against Eureka, Montana-based blogger Crystal Cox that accused her of defaming Oregon attorney Kevin Padrick with writings on her website that called him "very corrupt" and falsely suggested he may have hired a hitman to kill her, court papers state.
more
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/08/us-blogger-ruling-idUSTRE...
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Seigler on
-
well, now, making accusations of corruption without evidence of same IS defamation of character no matter who you are, EVEN a journalist, recognized or not.
-
Permalink Reply by TommyD on
-
Despite Oregon’s legal definition of “any medium of communication,” Judge Marco A. Hernandez disagreed with Cox, saying that “although [the] defendant is a self-proclaimed ‘investigative blogger’ and defines herself as ‘media,’ the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law in the first....
In other words, she is not a product of Project Mockingbird
-
Permalink Reply by joe banana on
-
Guess what? This judge is an idiot. In order to have a "blog", one has to belong to the provider of network access, hence belonging to a "network". If said allegations are true, and have caused 2.5 million dollars worth of harm to a party, there is a major malfunction of this judges brain. If said allegations have been dis-proven, where's that proof? Lawyers are inherently corrupt, so is the US judicial system, the US government in general, and congress. Proof the sun is shining, when it is, self evident.
-
Permalink Reply by 2hw5dj1ab9wn3 on
-
It IS defamation to do what she did...if it's true, however...simply show the evidence and PROVE it. No evidence? Bad day for her. It has NOTHING to do with "journalism" because it's defamation either way, even if you are a "journalist". A "chilling" effect? Making people have evidence before accusing people? The horror.
"Destroying the New World Order"
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
2073 - Official Trailer
It’s the year 2073, and the worst fears of modern life have been realized. Surveillance drones fill the burnt orange skies and militarized police roam the wr...
"We have American soldiers coming home from serving in the Middle East under 14 different…"
RISE OF THE RAINBOW CHILDREN (2021)
📺AMAZON/FIRESTICK/ROKU: Thescariestmovieever.tv https://watch.thescariestmovieever.tv/webtv-v3/
💯EMERGENCY FOOD SUPPLIES HERE (*Specials):…
© 2025 Created by truth.
Powered by
