5 ms·

The article (which rightfully provides the original decision) ignores the subsequent paragraph: Second, even if she were otherwise entitled to those protection

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.
saulrh 15y 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_oregon_bloggers_are_jou.php http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/12/unlike_or...
- bravura 15y 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?
  - delinka 15y ago
    It would be unfortunate if proving a negative were necessary to win such a case. IANAL so it indeed may be that the complainant must prove the statement is untrue. I would expect that a complaint such as this one would necessitate the writer proving that the statement is factual, accurate, or some other variation of truth.
    - wtallis 15y ago
      Putting the burden of proof solely on the journalist leaves the press open to legal harassment, having to constantly prove in court every statement that a public figure doesn't like. That kind of law probably wouldn't pass a constitutional test, especially in front of a Supreme Court that has upheld the right of news organizations to lie on air.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - scott_s 15y ago
Cushman 15y 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.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
nknight 15y 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.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

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.

saulrh 15y 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_oregon_bloggers_are_jou.php http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/12/unlike_or...

bravura 15y 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?
- delinka 15y ago
  It would be unfortunate if proving a negative were necessary to win such a case. IANAL so it indeed may be that the complainant must prove the statement is untrue. I would expect that a complaint such as this one would necessitate the writer proving that the statement is factual, accurate, or some other variation of truth.
  - wtallis 15y ago
    Putting the burden of proof solely on the journalist leaves the press open to legal harassment, having to constantly prove in court every statement that a public figure doesn't like. That kind of law probably wouldn't pass a constitutional test, especially in front of a Supreme Court that has upheld the right of news organizations to lie on air.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - scott_s 15y ago

Cushman 15y 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.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

nknight 15y 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.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]