Judge Fines Blogger $2.5 Million
cecilyk
|
So, a blogger in Oregon named Crystal Cox was fined by a judge $2.5 Million dollars because she wrote posts on her blog trashing a corporation, and the judge decided that as a blogger she did not have the same protection journalists have, therefore what she was doing was defamation.
OUCH. And I’ll be right back, I’ve got a couple blog entries I need to pull. Hold on.
Okay.
WOW. This is big news, yes?
Well, probably not. If you’re a blogger that has written a post trashing a company, you’re probably safe. It’s not likely that you’ll be charged with defamation just because you wrote a rant on your blog about the shitty customer service you got from your cell phone company (ahem). The blogger in the case, Crystal Cox, claimed to be an “investigative blogger” and had several sites up that all trashed a single company, Obsidian Finance Group (one site belonging to Ms. Cox was called ObsidianFinanceSucks.com). While at least one blog post had some facts that were apparently fed to her by an inside source (according to this Mashable post), generally the posts seem to be somewhat erratic and obsessive (this is my completely unprofessional assessment, for the record).
This post at the Seattle Weekly Blogs actually breaks down some of the issues with the Oregon law as it stands, if you’re interested. Media shield laws vary state by state (apparently, if Ms. Cox had been in Washington State, the laws would have protected her), and it’s not entirely unlikely that Ms. Cox’s case will be overturned on appeal. In fact, if she actually hires a lawyer instead of representing herself (as she did in this case), she might also stand a better chance of success.
Does this case impact the average blogger, particularly bloggers that cover corporate shenanigans? It’s a complicated question, and it’s hard to say if this case will stand. But it’s probably safe at this point to assume that bloggers don’t necessarily have free reign to create websites that focus specifically on trashing one particular person, organization, or corporation.
Lastly, no matter what you write, as long as it’s clear that it’s strictly your OPINION, and not cold hard facts, then you are safe. At least for now, in this country, we are all still free to state our opinions, no matter how insane and unattractive they are.
So rest easy, for now, bloggers. But keep your eye on cases like these.
Wow – fascinating Cecily! Good to know we are still safe to write our opinions!
Um.. not True.. I was told that even if the Word this is my opinion is used and you state what looks like facts you are liable.. also I did provide a source and the Judge removed over 500 pages of exhibits.
Maybe now those popular hater sites hating on other bloggers will be stopped. That would be a good thing!
In related news–I am surprised that SOPA isn’t getting more attention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act It is my understanding that this could be very detrimental to bloggers.
I read the Mashable post about this case, and they seemed too focused on the “are bloggers journalists?” angle. I’m a blogger, happy ro say I’m not a journalist. But I do consider myself a member of the media, just not traditional media.
However.
What this woman wrote was not investigative journalism. It was defamation. If she got her facts from her “inside source” and posted a factual account of what this company/CEO had done wrong, this would be a different story. Instead, she went and called the CEO a liar and a thief – and all sorts of other subjective crap – and then tried to hide behind the journalistic media shield.
It doesn’t work that way. If you want to “out” someone who is doing something illegal or immoral, you stick to the facts. You don’t cast judgment or otherwise editorialize on something like this. Facts are indisputable, because if they are accurate and the accused tries to come after you for libel, information can be subpoenaed to prove you aren’t making stuff up. Start name calling and casting aspersions, though, and you’re up a creek for defamation.
Interesting post and comments. Thanks for sharing.
As bloggers we have to be very careful. Like some of you already mentioned we are not considered part of the media, so we do not have the same protections that they do.
1: She was not FINED for blogging. She lost the case and the damages were awarded to the plaintiff.
2: She was not sued for blogging. She was sued for posting defamatory accusations at a company without being factual or citing unbiased sources to support her OPINIONS.
3: She did not lose her case because ..OMG.. the world hates bloggers.!!! She lost because she can not prove, in court, legally that she QUALIFIES for the protections afforded by the Media Shield Law
4: Judge Hernadez decided that the blogger did not qualify as a journalist based in part on the following : But Hernandez once again ruled that Cox was not a journalist. He noted the lack of “(1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting ‘the other side’ to get both sides of a story.” http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/judge-blogger-not-eligible-for-oregon-media-shield-law.ars
5: Ms Cox is claiming that her blogs fall under the journalistic protections against defamation because she HAS factual evidence to back up her claims via “secret sources” who do not wish to be revealed. Fine. Can’t have it both ways tho. If your allegations can be proven by inside sources you need to be able to CITE those inside sources and their facts. Otherwise? You can’t publish said allegations.
6: THIS ain’t helping prove out any I’m a JOURNALIST defence… “The claim that Cox isn’t a journalist is made plausible by an e-mail uncovered by Kashmir Hill at Forbes (Disclosure: I’m also a blogger at Forbes).
Padrick supplied Hill with a copy of an e-mail Cox had sent to Obsidian Finance a few days after the defamation lawsuit was filed. It offered Obsidian “PR Services and Search Engine Management Services starting at $2500 a month” to “protect online reputations.” While she doesn’t say so explicitly, the implication seems to be that if Obsidian forks over some cash, Cox will make sites like “obsidianfinancesucks.com” go away. ” (same source as above quote)
7: Of course she lost the case , she’s acting as her own lawyer..which..come on..seriously ? You have no credentials as a lawyer and are trying to prove that even tho you have no legally acceptable credentials as a journalist you are entitled to the professions protections ?
Do you EVER read beyond a headline before posting your opinion presented as fact essays ?