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

http://www.crystalcox.com/

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.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/08/us-blogger-ruling-idUSTRE...

Favorite

1 member favorited this

▶ Reply to This

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

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.