12 ms·

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

134 points by privacyguru 15y ago

losethos 15y ago
I can't tell if you're talking to me. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. -------- Jesus Accused by His Family and by Teachers of the Law 20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family[b] heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” 22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.” 23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” 30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.” 31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” 33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. 34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” ---------- God says... C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\BIBLE.TXT refore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good
fleitz 15y 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 15y ago
  _Especially_ when going up against a law firm in court!
  - solutionyogi 15y ago
    It was an investment firm and not a law firm.
- hristov 15y 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.
  - nknight 15y 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.
    - pyre 15y ago
      I would think that the ACLU would have an interest in the ruling though.
  - c0riander 15y ago
    As they say, the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.
bandushrew 15y 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.
wtallis 15y 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 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/044.html)
- nknight 15y 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 15y ago
  As kevinalexbrown noted, this also seems to be a case of people ignoring the next paragraph of the decision.
  - Klinky 15y 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 15y 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.
- taylorbuley 15y 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 15y 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.
    - wtallis 15y ago
      The bar for "actual malice" is significantly higher than "has a grudge against". The plaintiff has to prove that the defendant made statements knowing that they were false, or made statements with reckless disregard for the truth. In other words, being mean was more important that being right. If you are right or have good reason to believe that you are right, then it's not defamation to be mad and try to make your thoughts known. Additionally, the fact that someone has not yet been charged or indicted can never be used as evidence that they are innocent or not guilty.
spqr 15y ago
Did you read her blog posts? She sounds a bit unstable.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- tedunangst 15y ago
  The decision says nothing about being unable to create a new network. It says a network consisting of one person is not a network.
taylorbuley 15y 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.
- delinka 15y 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 15y 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.
tdmackey 15y 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-cox 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 15y 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.
  - tdmackey 15y 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...
    - lywald 15y ago
mikkom 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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.

134 points by privacyguru 15y ago

I can't tell if you're talking to me. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. -------- Jesus Accused by His Family and by Teachers of the Law 20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family[b] heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” 22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.” 23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” 30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.” 31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” 33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. 34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” ---------- God says... C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\BIBLE.TXT refore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good

fleitz 15y 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 15y ago
_Especially_ when going up against a law firm in court!
- solutionyogi 15y ago
  It was an investment firm and not a law firm.
hristov 15y 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.
- nknight 15y 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.
  - pyre 15y ago
    I would think that the ACLU would have an interest in the ruling though.
- c0riander 15y ago
  As they say, the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

bandushrew 15y 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.

wtallis 15y 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 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/044.html)

nknight 15y 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 15y ago
As kevinalexbrown noted, this also seems to be a case of people ignoring the next paragraph of the decision.
- Klinky 15y 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 15y 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.

taylorbuley 15y 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 15y 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.
  - wtallis 15y ago
    The bar for "actual malice" is significantly higher than "has a grudge against". The plaintiff has to prove that the defendant made statements knowing that they were false, or made statements with reckless disregard for the truth. In other words, being mean was more important that being right. If you are right or have good reason to believe that you are right, then it's not defamation to be mad and try to make your thoughts known. Additionally, the fact that someone has not yet been charged or indicted can never be used as evidence that they are innocent or not guilty.

spqr 15y ago

Did you read her blog posts? She sounds a bit unstable.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

tedunangst 15y ago
The decision says nothing about being unable to create a new network. It says a network consisting of one person is not a network.

taylorbuley 15y 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.

delinka 15y 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 15y 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.

tdmackey 15y 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-cox 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 15y 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.
- tdmackey 15y 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...
  - lywald 15y ago

mikkom 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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.