Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Daniel Seigler on December 9, 2011 at 6:34pm

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TommyD on December 18, 2011 at 9:11pm

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

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by joe banana on October 17, 2012 at 9:42pm

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2hw5dj1ab9wn3 on October 25, 2012 at 1:48pm

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.

• ▶ Reply