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 instance.”
0
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Seems right to me. I post Alphie is a flame bot and he sues me. I defend that someone that knows Alphie told me that but I won’t reveal his name because I am a journalist?
I don’t think so. And thats why I have never called Alphie a flame bot==plus everyone knows he doesn’t have any friends.
I thinks thats called “The Circle of Life.”
Sounds reasonable. Otherwise anyone could say they won’t answer questions in court based on the shield law for journalists.
You have to look at the blogger and the blog, so in its effort to be expedient, I expect the courts to ignore the facts and go with precedent, (The same precedent that found Galileo guilty of heresy.)
An easy way to determine it is whether a certain amount of your income is made through journalism, blog or otherwise. What that amount would be, I don’t know.
Well I guess that is the end to a lot of blogs then. And the beginning of anonymous ones.
Cursor_
> 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
f
a
s
c
i
s
t
It’s definitely an interesting topic. My take is that since blogs would be considered part of the “alternative media” they will get no respect from the “establishment”.
Apparently big money trump freedom of speech rights. Which only protects people’s speech from government interference. But not from commercial entities, suing people out of existence, for expressing any opinion, that may effect the bottom line of said entity. So it’s probably surprising that such law suits don’t happen far more often. But most commercial entities probably fear the public backlash of negative press. While some other obviously don’t care. Or know their reputations are safe, with the press they control. Still I doubt the framers of the US Constitution ever envisioned corporations being bigger and more powerful that government. And using the court system to sue everyone who expressed an opinion about commercial products. Technically even journalists are safe. There’s just this understanding to not mess with the press.
But if Neo-Nazis can get away with publishing their hate messages, under First Amendment protection. Then certainly the average person should be safe from legal reprisals, for expressing an option online. What’s next, be sued for being a hurtful witness in court? Be sued for saying something on Facebook or YouTube. The precedent being sent here is that it’s ok to beat up on the little guy, cause they aren’t backed by a monopoly media empire like Rupert Murdock.
“The precedent being sent here is that it’s ok to beat up on the little guy, cause they aren’t backed by a monopoly media empire like Rupert Murdock.”
No.
The precedent being set here is: You can’t shield yourself from libel accusations -just- by claiming to be a blogger.
Otherwise, I can just start blogging about the -supposed- criminal activities of anybody I want, and then claim 1st Amendment protections for free speech.
Stifling free speech is more important to you than anything else, by your own words.
I say a company has the means and motivation to put down any, and all, negative press… just release a damn press release with some god damn FACTS!
BUT NO, the company has to use the courts to beat this one person over the head. Guess what, “He doth protest too much methinks!!!!!!!”
here here
The cold sweat is pouring at the Huffington Post
Indeed.
Thanks for the laugh.
Thank you, judge. The recognized journalists are bad enough. Believe me, I’m one.
Since when did shield laws or the freedom of speech protect people engaged in libelous or defamatory speech?
I believe anyone should be able to speak the truth. I’m not fond of anyone publishing lies.
Here is the blog post in question:
http://bankruptcycorruption.com/2010/12/kevin-padrick-of-obsidian-finance-group.html
And this …
obsidianfinancesucks.com
And this …
summit1031bkjustice.com
If Fox News is journalism – then ANYONE can be a journalist. Money shouldn’t be the deciding factor.
If the reporter is telling the truth – what’s the problem?
Who is a journalist ?
Yet the question was asked “How did World War 1 Begin?”
The answer was that wars began when politicians begin to believe the lies that they demand journalists write
How true today
Yet watch the mainstream media to try to detect any real journalists what so ever
jour·nal·ist noun \-nə-list\
Definition of JOURNALIST
1
a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium
b : a writer who aims at a mass audience
2: a person who keeps a journal
The judge in this case needs to read a dictionary.
A writer who aims at a mass audience is a blogger and a journalist.
The case will be overturned on appeal.
Pamphlet?
So anything on wood pulp , but electrons aren’t good enough.
Seems like a simple opportunity for some newspaper to save itself financially:
It sets up a Blog News Network/
1 Blogger joins and pays a monthly fee – a few bucks.
2. BNN lists blogger as a freelance journalist member
3. BNN sends members a daily email with a variety of headlines om various topics
4. Newspaper daily publishes a featured blog post from among it’s members
Voila! The bloggers all become journalists under the court’s definition and the newspaper founding the service gets an infusion of cash each month from thousands (tens of thousands? more?) bloggers at almost no cost. Members of BNN now enjoy shield laws as boner fidey jounalistas!
Drudge or HuffPo or a dozen others could even do this and probably already have the basic infrastructure. Hell, even Dvorak could do it. (JCD – if you do, I think I should get say 10%? Hell, I’d even be one of the editors for you.)
Good idea.
I hope the judge likes his job.
AHEM—Everybody has the same free speech rights.
Journalist is a defined term to which “additional rights and privileges” attach such as the ISSUE HERE which was the protection of the Journalist Shield Law.
That said, some interesting issues of public policy remain all going to I don’t understand how the shield law works. If you are a journalist–you don’t have to reveal your sources==but I don’t think as a non journalist you “have to” either. Compelled to testified?
So, seems to me THE ISSUE HERE is simply whether or not a person has to reveal a source wherein a journalist doesn’t but the blogger or anyone else does have to BUT THEREAFTER all parties still need to prove their defamatory statements or be liable.
Pretty small isolated issue here having nothing to do with free speech.
What have I got wrong?
Would Thomas Paine have qualified as a journalist?
Yes. According to a dictionary definition, a writer that aims their work at a mass audience is a journalist.
Mark Twain would be a journalist under that definition.
However, there is a clear movement by the legal system to suppress free speech by narrowing the definition of journalist to those slaves that are owned by the corporate media.
So a blogger, aiming his/her work at everyone in the world (i.e. internet users), like Paine, is a journalist. Massive fail by the judge.
There is a good chance the decision will be overturned by an appeals court.
It depends on how well the lawyer argues the point in court.
Then we have no more journalist left because I see very little proof that “journalism” takes place under your definition.
I swear 95% of all the crap I read is opinions from “news sites.” I have to keep pointing out loaded words and emotional constructs to people claiming that X article is really good at explaining the problem or how Y article is factual and has no spin.
I’m still wondering if we ever really had journalism under the above rules you stated. Or if we’re all just looking at the past with our “good ol’ day” glasses. =)
You should bother to read the articles you post,Uncle Dave. The judge ruled this particular blogger isn’t a journalist not that all bloggers aren’t journalist. Your headline on this post helps make his case though, so congrats.
Rather nit picky, aren’t we? Technically, this case is against one individual, however it sets a precedence that can be used against others. So, expect to see all bloggers eventually held to this in the future, unless a higher court overrules or the laws change.
No, Semantics isn’t being nit picky at all. This person was engaged in slander but calling it blogging. So it’s correct that this blogger was “held to this”, and they should be “in the future.” Do you really think people should be shielded from destroying others simply by tacking the word “blogger” onto themselves? What the court did was right, so don’t expect a higher court to overrule or the laws to change, unless of course, you haven’t actually read the articles you post about.
Gotta be reversed on appeal !!! The government can’t determine what a “Press” is, any more than it can determine what a “Church” is ….