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

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/12/crystal_cox_oregon_blogger_isn.php

by privacyguru • 15 years ago

134 49 15 years ago

blogs.seattleweekly.com

fleitz3• 15 years ago

"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.

thetron• 15 years ago

_Especially_ when going up against a law firm in court!

solutionyogi• 15 years ago

It was an investment firm and not a law firm.

hristov• 15 years ago

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.

nknight3• 15 years ago

EFF would be more likely, I think. The ACLU's focus is mostly government-related, they don't step into a lot of private lawsuits.

c0riander• 15 years ago

As they say, the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

jamesaguilar2• 15 years ago

> 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.

smackfu• 15 years ago

This blog post is so unreadable it's a wonder that they bothered suing her.

grecy• 15 years ago

I particularly like have every single paragraph starts with, and most contain (in bold) the exact phrase "Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group".

I can only assume the blogger is going for that phrase in Google.

www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/ is #4 for that phrase.

bandushrew• 15 years ago

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.

wtallis3• 15 years ago

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)

nknight3• 15 years ago

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.

tedunangst• 15 years ago

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

Klinky• 15 years ago

I don't really think the second paragraph matters so much. If he is saying "bloggers aren't 'the media'" or that you essentially have to be employed by a big name media agency in order to get protections, that is a big deal.

He could have easily said that she is part of the media, but that the law doesn't protect those in the media from these types of lawsuits. Reading the law, I think blogging does fall into the category that gives it protection, even if those protections wouldn't have made a difference in this case.

kevinalexbrown• 15 years ago

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.

taylorbuley2• 15 years ago

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.

darasen• 15 years ago

When one names a web site so and sucks .com then they are obviously coming from a standpoint intent on malice. Adding to that that the blogger in this case has also been regularly accusing someone of a crime they have never even been indicted on she in no way should be considered a journalist.

saulrh• 15 years ago

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...

bravura• 15 years ago

My understanding was that, in a defamation claim, the complainant must prove the statement is untrue, not that the defendant must prove that her statement is true. Is oregon law different?

CrystalLCox• 15 years ago

I Did Provide My Source. The Court Threw It Out. http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2011/12/in-obsidian-v-co... I was never asked to retract the post, and under Oregon Retraction Laws denied that law because I am a blog and not TV, or Traditional Broadcasting.

Cushman• 15 years ago

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.

nknight3• 15 years ago

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.

taylorbuley2• 15 years ago

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.

delinka2• 15 years ago

"...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."

Jach• 15 years ago

Yeah, "absolutely cannot" is a strange substitute for "shouldn't" in this case. I'd further restrict it to "...in public writing that has a decent chance of gaining a large audience", and possibly adding "...and which is against a party likely to notice and sue". Libel laws don't seem to deter most of the online-based libel happening all the time.

tdmackey3• 15 years ago

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• 15 years ago

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.

tdmackey3• 15 years ago

When you essentially don't try to defend yourself but instead insult and berate the court and opposing council in the legal documents you submit to the court you open up a very large window for the judge to side against you when there is any sort of leeway...

scott_s2• 15 years ago

If one side presents a really bad case, do they have to lose even if they are right?

In most cases, the only indication the judge has as to who is right or wrong are what is presented to him.

mikkom• 15 years ago

> 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• 15 years ago

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.

fauigerzigerk• 15 years ago

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.

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

Related Stories