Court Victory Gives Blogger Same Speech Protections As Traditional Press 137
cold fjord writes "Reuters reports, 'A blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless she acted negligently, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday. Crystal Cox lost a defamation trial in 2011 over a blog post she wrote accusing a bankruptcy trustee and Obsidian Finance Group of tax fraud. A lower court judge had found that Obsidian did not have to prove that Cox acted negligently because Cox failed to submit evidence of her status as a journalist. But in the ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Cox deserved a new trial, regardless of the fact that she is not a traditional reporter. "As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable."... Eugene Volokh, [a] Law professor who represented Cox, said Obsidian would now have to show that Cox had actual knowledge that her post was false when she published it. ... "In this day and age, with so much important stuff produced by people who are not professionals, it's harder than ever to decide who is a member of the institutional press."' Further details are available at Courthouse News Service."
yes! (Score:1)
A great victory for the blogosphere
Re:yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
How can anyone be entitled more free speech than others??? everyone is entitled the same free speech, journalist, blogger or bum.
Re:yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
I totally agree with you.
I would argue the distinction has ALWAYS been unworkable its just that the internet has made it more obvious.
Although I am sure corporate media organisations will disagree...but fuck them.
And if this gets overturned or is not the case in other countries I would suggest that bloggers form a collective media organisation - Independent Media United. :)
As a side bonus they could use it as a blogging community, buy hosting in bulk or whatever....
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Obsidian would now have to show that Cox had actual knowledge that her post was false when she published it
Something about this just seems wrong. How may times have people had their lives ruined by false accusations in the Press only to have the accusations shown to be false. Richard Jewel [nytimes.com] is a good example. Seems to me that just being a notable person should not be a free pass for folks in the Press to ruin them, accidentally or otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Nevertheless, why would it be ok for an "official" journalist to do this?
For example Fox news in every second one of their stories....
You are arguing a different point here....
Re: (Score:1)
Now now, fox lies through their teeth, but so do the others..
Re: (Score:2)
I was just picking the most disgusting mainstream example I can think of off the top of my head.
Re:yes! - well - no (Score:2)
Um, Fox corroborates their stories before they air them.
YOU might not like what they say, (and really it boils down to that, doesn't it), and YOU might find their sources suspicious, but
I suspect you had no problem believing CBS [washingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you've never watched a political speech first and then went to fox to see what they do to it. Quite often going off in a tangent about something that was never even in the speech. If you want to head to fox first, fine. But do yourself a favor and then go to youtube and watch it "uncensored". They're usually posted there a while later.
Remember, fux is NOT an American company. The owner (Rupert Murdoch) is out for the money. Sensationalism is how he sells news world wide.
But the main problem with al
Re: (Score:2)
First, off, I don't head to Fox first, or even CNN, and certainly not NBC. I'm generally aware of most stories before they even break on the national news. I watch the BBC, CBC, I surf newspapers from all over the world, even Al Jazeera, Pravda, etc.
However, every time one of my (way ot liberal) friends starts the liberal Fox New Lies rant, I invite them over to watch the nightly news.
We each start with 10 bucks on the coffee table.
Every time they call something a lie, they have to prove it with an un-imp
Re: (Score:3)
I am not an american. I don't watch ANY of your 24 hr news feeds for my news. They are all corporate driven media and biased in their own way.
Try watching BBC or some other respected non-US news source once in a while to see what else is out there - you may be very surprised.
And taking your smear to the full extent I feel compelled to say I also don't like either of your 2 political parties either - I think they are both complete shit and find your whole political system a complete farce and a bad joke as d
Re: (Score:2)
Not that any of them (countries or news orgs) are perfect but none of them are as blatantly biased as Fox news.
Well a I have to assume you are speaking from total ignorance here. Why? Because you said so yourself:
I don't watch ANY of your 24 hr news feeds for my news.
I can get the BBC here, as well as the CBC, Al Jazeera, and I am internet close to anything else.
If you think Fox is biased, you clearly haven't seen MSNBC. Oh! My! God!
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said "that I could think of".
I am sure there are much more shitty news orgs out there. Probably none of them with the viewership of Fox news....
And I am not speaking from ignorance. I used to flick back and forth between Fox and BBC when they were on after midnight to compare.
The difference was mindblowing....
Re:yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
You are being very naive.
Who defines "bad" and "good"?
And why is i that a for profit corporate such as Fox News (to pick the most disgusting mainstream example I can think of) is given special privilege given their well documented bias and motivations....
As I said...naive....
Re: (Score:3)
Obsidian would now have to show that Cox had actual knowledge that her post was false when she published it
Something about this just seems wrong. How may times have people had their lives ruined by false accusations in the Press only to have the accusations shown to be false. Richard Jewel [nytimes.com] is a good example. Seems to me that just being a notable person should not be a free pass for folks in the Press to ruin them, accidentally or otherwise.
True, Obsidian would normally under these circumstances, have to show negligence, either that the information
was false or that she had no information at all, and was merely slandering Obsidian.
However, Cox (apparently) tried to hide behind journalism privilege, without providing evidence in court,
perhaps trying to protect her sources, or perhaps because she really never had any verifiable
information. Its not clear from TFA.
But had she substantiated her claims, that's when journalistic protections should ki
Re: (Score:2)
The criterion that you are not allowed to knowingly tell outright lies seems reasonable to me. And when do you lie? When you know the thing you say is false. And exactly this is the criterion the court used here: Mrs. Cox didn't pr
Re:yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue the distinction has ALWAYS been unworkable its just that the internet has made it more obvious.
That's exactly it. The Supreme Court said
âoeWith the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media ⦠the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.â
Guess where they said it? Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. Yes that Citizens United. How that decision became popularized as "corporations are evil because the system is corrupt" I can't figure. Protection of First Amendment freedoms is good, full stop.
Re:yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
What makes it evil is it equated money with speech as well as said corporations are entitled to the same rights as people in a much stronger stance than any other decision. By allowing anonymous donations to political campaigns, there is no saying where the money actually came from be it local or from a foreign nation seeking to upset our political arena.
Re: (Score:3)
But that's just it - the finding was that if a person has freedom of speech and of the press, then a group of people have the same freedoms, whether incorporated or otherwise. In the modern world, any attempt to get your ideas heard in the national conversation requires money, unless you are a professional journalist with a soapbox provided for you. If we are to believe that freedom of speech and of the press are not something restricted to professional journalists (as I strongly believe), then you cannot
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, that's the same bullshit rationalization that they used. The problem that you and they are ignoring is the fact that the you can suppress someone else's speech by overwhelming the room with your money.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem that you and they are ignoring is the fact that the you can suppress someone else's speech by overwhelming the room with your money.
Those who can personally buy a newspaper company or TV station already have this ability. You don't make it better by forbidding a group of people to pool their resources to compete with the richest few! How would that even make sense?
Look, you can either have political speech only by the most wealthy, you can allow groups of people to act in concert to air their collective view (which in the modern world means a financial entity designed to pool money: a corporation), or you allow the government itself t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Corporations are not 'groups of people'. It's like saying that your plumber can use your house to post political ads in your front yard, because the contract you signed for his job makes you two a 'group of people'. This is the problem with that decision. It's a nice 1st amendment statement, but applied in a nonsensical way.
You might say, "well, public entities sometimes incorporate exactly to promote a common position!". Yes. And those are entirely different categories of organizations.
Re: (Score:2)
The corporation Citizens United was very much a group of people who had pooled their money to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton. How is that in any way not political speech by a group of people, peaceably assembled?
Would you have the ruling be that some corporation can and other can't have political speech? As selected by the government? Wouldn't that be convenient for those in power!
Re: (Score:2)
And if this gets overturned or is not the case in other countries I would suggest that bloggers form a collective media organisation - Independent Media United. :)
As a side bonus they could use it as a blogging community, buy hosting in bulk or whatever....
This. Probably the best idea in the whole thread.
Seriously, one or more associations, unions, collectives would be great. Hosting them in on place, no so much.
But having an organization that has to at least pay lip service to keeping their bloggers members honest, and not
involved in shake-downs (Cox was accused by the Judge of this very tactic: Retraction for Money) would go a long
way.
The organizations would not even have to be view-point neutral. Just Organized and encouraging SOME sort of
standards in r
Put AdSense on your blog (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So if you do charity work it's not professional?
Re: (Score:2)
So if you do charity work it's not professional?
Correct, if you not being paid then it's not professional.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just free speech, but the meaning of freedom of the press, as that is called out as a separate "line item" if you will in the first amendment. What does that mean in a context distinct from speech? In the rare situation that circumstances make it impossible for everyone to be in a given location - for example, in a courtroom, on Air Force One, etc. - it makes sense to designate a "pool reporter" to take that spot in exchange for agreeing to share the information with everyone else. Often it's li
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. But most powerful people don't like free speech. They'd like to clamp down on it entirely, but many traditional journalists also had powerful backing. So the compromise was reached that free speech would be restricted but there'd be exceptions for bona fide (anointed by the powerful) journalists.
"A modern day lawyer (Score:2)
Punched real hard and he. .
Duh-DUH Duh-DUH
(Thanks, I'm here all week.)
Re: (Score:2)
Woah. Tom Sawyer is actually playing as I read this.
If you call the police (Score:2)
Re:yes! (Score:4, Interesting)
A great victory for the blogosphere
Very much so. And I will also point out that Eugene Volokh [ucla.edu] is quite an interesting fellow with a great blog [volokh.com]. Lots of interesting commentary there. Legal Insurrection [legalinsurrection.com] is another great legal blog.
Volokh worked for 12 years as a computer programmer. He graduated from UCLA with a B.S. in math-computer science at age 15, and has written many articles on computer software. Volokh was born in the USSR; his family emigrated to the U.S. when he was seven years old.
Because child prodigy is no longer in Soviet Russia, free speech comes to you!
Re: (Score:1)
Volokh Consipracy is awesome. There's plenty of kibitzing in the comments section (personal attacks and snide commentary that would get -1'd here) but they track (and participate in, as with OP) a lot of legal decisions with constitutional impact.
Ancient precedents (Score:1)
It's not a coincidence that anonymously-printed hand bills, distributed, in London, in the 1600s and 1700s, were often referred to as 'libels'; they challenged the status quo and those whom maintained dominance.
Clearly when the Founders sought to protect ownership of printing presses, they also sought to protect libelers, as one man's libel was another man's free speech and a third man's entertainment - they did not see fit to decide for those men, or their peers.
When I was reading a book on the CIA's cocai
Somewhere Sen. Feinstein throws her laptop. (Score:5, Insightful)
Better luck pissing on inalienable rights next time. Why not try banning the second amendment again. That'll make you feel better.
Re: (Score:2)
Better luck pissing on inalienable rights next time. Why not try banning the second amendment again. That'll make you feel better.
I like your wording better than the headline. She did indeed have that right all the time and the court forced the rest of the government to recognize that fact.
Re:Somewhere Sen. Feinstein throws her laptop. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well I made that quip because Feinstein purposed an amendment a while back that would strip certain journalistic protections under the first amendment UNLESS you worked for an established news organization. Which would give the federal government an avenue to attack anyone they didn't like the message of.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well... I loath to throw the 'F' word around excessively. But given her voting record it honestly is a good fit. Very hawkish, very pro federal power, very anti liberty.
I... also hate to go so far as to call her supports sheep. But I just don't have a nicer way to put it. Perhaps it's the divisiveness of politics here in the US. A lot of people get it in their mind that if it's 'Right' it ain't right! And no one in he
Gives? (Score:1)
I think you mean "restores"? After they tried to take it away? [eff.org]
Re: (Score:1)
I prefer the word "recognizes". This is not only more accurate from a more philosophical perspective, but it also places the point on the fact that court cannot give or restore anything--that stems from the power vested by the people into the legislature (and times executive). It is the job of a court to interpret and recognize the law for the sake of justice. And, of course, at times it is the place of courts to recognize when the law is unjust and corrupt and those who work against the legislature and/
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that is the way it is supposed to work in a free country. The people are the sovereign and they hold all the rights, the government is the subject and outside a few specific roles, they are to be bystanders in our prosperity. The people are presumed to be able to do anything unless there is a law barring the action. The US constitution even makes this clear in the 9th and 10th amendments
Somehow, in modern t
Re: (Score:1)
It's not like the government, or anyone else, can make you say something against your will
try telling that to the inmates of gitmo and bagram
Re:Anyone could be a blogger... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But you see, a blogger doesn't have a 'job' to lose(meaning, blogging is not their occupation), so what do they care if they write false accusations?
A journalist would be more professional - if they make an accusation, they'd have their research to back it up. Their accusation could be verified by other journalists, or from multiple sources.
The journalist would(by and large) have to follow a code of conduct/ethics, whereas a personal blogger is unregulated. The situations are not the same, so how can the la
You really are clueless (Score:3, Informative)
Pie in the sky is the most expensive kind. Journalists don't follow a code of ethics or conduct, and even if they did there is no reason that they should somehow be granted greater First Amendment protection than the common man. Nothing you said is relevant because the Constitution requires equal protection under the law for everyone. Singling out journalists as having the right to protect their sources is equal to differentiating "everyone else" as not having that right. Freedom of speech includes freedom
Citation needed (Score:2)
But you see, a blogger doesn't have a 'job' to lose(meaning, blogging is not their occupation)
It is if the blogger has ads on his site.
A journalist would be more professional - if they make an accusation, they'd have their research to back it up.
So does someone become a "journalist" merely by properly citing sources [wikipedia.org]? If so, the biggest difference between a journalist and a Wikipedia editor is that unlike a Wikipedia editor [wikipedia.org], a journalist is allowed to make an original synthesis of information from published sources.
The journalist would(by and large) have to follow a code of conduct/ethics, whereas a personal blogger is unregulated.
By whom is a journalist regulated?
The situations are not the same, so how can the law apply equally for both cases?
Because the law allows for a blogger who cites his sources and who makes and follows a reasonable code of ethics.
Re:Anyone could be a blogger... (Score:4, Interesting)
But you see, a blogger doesn't have a 'job' to lose(meaning, blogging is not their occupation), so what do they care if they write false accusations?
I pride myself on the quality of my blog, and have the sources documentation and research to back up everything I write about. I also provide contact details so that I can retract any inaccuracies if they do appear, which fortunately has only ever happened once. I also have no editors to sabotage the final print before publishing meaning the end product is always what I intended. The same cannot be said for journalists.
Re: (Score:2)
But you see, a blogger doesn't have a 'job' to lose(meaning, blogging is not their occupation), so what do they care if they write false accusations?
"I pride myself on the quality of my blog, and have the sources documentation and research to back up everything I write about. I also provide contact details so that I can retract any inaccuracies if they do appear, which fortunately has only ever happened once. I also have no editors to sabotage the final print before publishing meaning the end product is always what I intended. The same cannot be said for journalists."
I botched the quote tags.
Re:Anyone could be a blogger... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.
In modern times, pretty much anyone can own one.
Re: (Score:2)
Well there you go, it's right there in the constitution: If you own a printing press, or work directly for someone who does, you are a journalist. Otherwise get stuffed.
Heh.
Considering the valuable and recurring role that pseudonymous pamphleteering played in the formation of the US , I find it hard to believe that anyone can claim the "The Press" is a formal institution with special protections.
Re: (Score:2)
Well there you go, it's right there in the constitution: If you own a printing press, or work directly for someone who does, you are a journalist. Otherwise get stuffed.
Actually, yeah, I'm cool with that. We have a printer at the office, so I would count as a journalist, and given that low barrier to entry (owning, or working for a business that owns, a printing device), pretty much everyone counts as a journalist already or could quickly become one. And remember, a cheap inkjet is a faster and better printer than the best press money could buy back in 1776.
Re: (Score:2)
True, true; however, that printer isn't actually a printing *press* is it? And as it says right in the name its the *press* part that gets you protections. Perhaps having an antique printing press mothballed in your basement might qualify you, but not some piddly little printer that just anyone can get their hands on.
Re: (Score:3)
lol.. The press concept was specifically because it was a way, the best way I might add, to disseminate your "freedom of speech". The entire concept of the press in the constitution is about being able to put ideas and opinions out into the world in order to influence your surroundings and government. This is why there is only a comma separating the freedom of speech, or of the press instead of semicolons which is used in the same amendment in order to separate different concepts like religion.
Justice Black
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, my laser printer does have a hot roller that presses/fuses the ink to the paper, so it is, technically, a printing press.
You inkjet slackards are in trouble, though. :P
Re:Anyone could be a blogger... (Score:5, Insightful)
code of conduct/ethics...traditional journalist
Have you been sleeping for a few decades?
Re: (Score:1)
go easy on him... he obviously watches CNN ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
A traditional journalist is also less likely to pursue politically sensitive stories for the same reasons. When was the last time you remember the White House press corps really hammering the President on a sticky issue?
Re: (Score:2)
>And so a blogger could make accusations(false ones, in particular), with few consequences
Certainly. And it's a self-minimizing problem - A random person walking past you on the street could scream out random false accusations, and you'd have a hard time silencing them legally, but not many people are going to listen to them. A blogger might be able to yell his accusations in a medium where more people will hear him, but the size of that audience will be largely based on the historical value and/or pro
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
For a blogger to be entitled to the same free speech protection as a traditional journalist, then they must follow the same code of conduct/ethics as a traditional journalist.
Until then, what the blogger writes is unregulated. Personal unregulated commentary are not the same as regulated publication, and therefore the same rules can't be applied to both.
Re:Anyone could be a blogger... (Score:4, Funny)
the same code of conduct/ethics as a traditional journalist.
You mean none?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm confused here. The first amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; among other things not pertinent to this discussion. But in nowhere that I can find does no law seem to imply "only if you agree to act in a certain way". Can you please point out to us where this might be? From what I can tell, no law means it would bar even the establishment of criteria in order to qualify as "the press" in the first place as it would limit who can be the press. and thi
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
defamation laws don't inhibit your right to free speech... you are free to commit libel just as long as you are willing to face the consequences if saying something wrongfully defamatory.
just as you are free to bear arms, but if you shoot someone in anything but self defence you face a murder trial.
every action has consequnces.
rights don't come without responsibilities. the bill of rights covers your rights... various other laws cover your responsibilities.
the bill of rights is itself merely a law. "inalien
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is not consequences, it is the establishments of sanctioned verses none sanctioned. Or to put it bluntly, separate laws governing speech depending on if you are associated with a specific organization or not and having stricter penalties when any association is not legally recognized.
It doesn't matter if it is the New York Times, or Joe Simpleton who printed 500 flyers at Kinko's, or in this case, a blogger with viewers, when the laws are different, then not only is the first amendment in violat
Re: (Score:1)
Regardless of the case in TFA, anyone from Joe Simpleton to the NY Times can be charged with libel. The defference comes down to capacity to mount a defense.
Existing case law is often contradictory and requires interpretation on a case-by-case basis. The outcome of the case in TFA will no doubt be used in future cases, but it won't necessarily dictate the outcome of future cases.
The law seems a bit messy due to defamation being usually under state jurisdiction, which can be overturned by the federal courts
Re: (Score:2)
If the first amendment means anything, the only difference in capacity to mount a defense that can be is the difference between your financial means and mine and the people we employ for the defense. Any difference in standards for implementation of a law or it's application is in violation of the entire free speech concept (let alone equal protection u
Re: (Score:1)
I know that seems like an excuse
That's because it is. You could do the same thing with just about any kind of speech to avoid recognizing that you're infringing upon people's free speech rights.
Re: (Score:1)
you are free to commit libel just as long as you are willing to face the consequences if saying something wrongfully defamatory.
That makes absolutely no sense. I guess North Korean citizens are just as free as us... they just suffer severe consequences if they do absolutely anything that the government doesn't like. If the government punishes you for doing something, you're not free to do it. Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.
not that they absolve you of any responsibilities.
They resolve you of responsibilities that involve the government punishing you. Otherwise, it's not a right at all.
What about the government's responsibility to uphold the constitution? They explicitly
Re: (Score:1)
I guess North Korean citizens are just as free as us
the real question you should ask yourself is: do you really have any more freedom than citizens of north korea?
if you are an ignorant fool you would answer "of course", but i think fundamentally the governments of north korea and the united states aren't as different as you would like to think
They resolve you of responsibilities that involve the government punishing you
no... actually if the government had no right to punish citizens then there wouldn't be much point in having courts would there
government's responsibility to uphold the constitution?
"governments" don't have rights or responsibilities because it isn't a tangible thing... on
Re: (Score:2)
then they must follow the same code of conduct/ethics as a traditional journalist.
So instead of sticking to the facts and citing reliable sources I should just write sensational fear mongering claims.
Re: Anyone could be a blogger... (Score:1)
You do realize that rags like The National Enquirer and The Sun are "traditional" journalists.
Re: (Score:2)
the constitution ensures your right to bear arms, but it doesn't give you the right to shoot someone.
the constitution ensures your right to free speech, it doesn't give you the right to libel someone.
it's not rocket science.
A judge with common sense?! (Score:2)
What about EULA's and copyright issues? (Score:2)
What about EULA's and copyright issues?
As one that ban bad press about X item / person / corporation?
How does this apply to students? (Score:2)
There have been numerous accounts of secondary school students censored or reprimanded as well as public university students who have felt the heavy hand of administration for having their say online.
Re: (Score:2)
and the Supreme Court rules that student speech can be limited by the school admin already.
For secondary school students, yes. For university students who are legal adults, no. Only legal children can be censored.
(Whether or not that particular restriction is right or fair is a whole other argument.)
Easy Distinction to Make (Score:5, Insightful)
"In this day and age, with so much important stuff produced by people who are not professionals, it's harder than ever to decide who is a member of the institutional press."
It's easy to distinguish those who are members of the institutional press; they never ask challenging questions of the wealthy and powerful, reliably support one of the overly simplistic two-party positions on all wedge issues, and don't publish stories like the Snowden trove until the non-traditional press has left them no other choice. These are the very reasons that the non-traditional press needs as much or more protection than the mundane, risk-averse mainstream media.
Re:Easy Distinction to Make (Score:4, Interesting)
These are the very reasons that the non-traditional press needs as much or more protection than the mundane, risk-averse mainstream media.
I absolutely agree with you. However, I'm not sure that this particular blogger is the best representative of the "non-traditional press." From TFA:
Cox's blogging activities have attracted their share of controversy. According to the court's opinion, Cox has a history of making allegations of fraud and other illegal activities "and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction."
Further, if you start doing any basic internet searches, you'll find all sorts of sordid claims about this blogger. If stuff on this link [popehat.com] is true, for example -- this blogger is the kind of person who registers the domain names of not only enemies, but the children of her enemies, and then posts horrible stuff about them (apparently sometimes made up), and then sends letters asking for money if they want it taken down.
I have no idea if all of this is true, but it's clear from a number of stories -- both on blogs [wordpress.com] and in the "institutional press" that you accuse of not asking the hard questions, like the NY Times [nytimes.com] -- that the blogger at the center of this case is not just a "non-traditional press" representative or journalist. This appears to be someone who deliberately posts offensive material about people in order to extort money.
So, is this really a victory for the "non-traditional press," or an invitation for a new kind of "shake-down" scheme where the mob comes after your business and acts for "protection" money? (I haven't been following this story, so I don't know the answer to this, but this is the kind of stuff I've found with a few quick searches, so it appears more complex than a simple "freedom of the press" victory.)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the court's opinon was this:
- the blogger made statements which were factually incorrect
- the blogger, in his blog postings, while making his point, frequently employed hyperbole
- a reasonable reader would conclude that this author is exaggerating for rhetorical effect, not claiming actual facts
- therefore, the defamation suit is without merit, and the rantings of this blogger are protected free speech
- You also, can say that the members of Duck Dynasty are liars committing fraud, even on a blog tha
Re: (Score:2)
- a reasonable reader would conclude that this author is exaggerating for rhetorical effect, not claiming actual facts
- therefore, the defamation suit is without merit, and the rantings of this blogger are protected free speech
- You also, can say that the members of Duck Dynasty are liars committing fraud, even on a blog that many read, and have confidence the US courts will protect your right to say it. Provided you don't sound like anyone who's making factual statements.
I haven't read the court decision (yet), but if what you say is true, the story here and its portrayal in the media is a complete and utter distortion.
If the judge only ruled in favor of the blogger because she came across as a lunatic or that no reasonable person would believe her, then this is not at all a victory for "journalists," whether of the traditional kind or bloggers -- it's merely a victory for trolls and other people who say random crap that no one believes. I fail to see what that would hav
Re: (Score:2)
The standard for defamation is that it be a factually incorrect statement, known to be factually
Same Protections as the Press (Score:2, Interesting)
isn't saying much these days.
People in the free press are meeting with "accidents" and the "misfortune" if your article covers bankers, their cronies mischief in the NSA.
-Hack
Yay! (Score:2)
The Ninth Circuit totally gets it right. Any other ruling would be massively un-American.
If you limit First Amendment rights to professional reporters, then what you are REALLY doing is limiting First Amendment rights to the people who employ those reporters.
Couldn't have happened to a more horrible person.. (Score:5, Informative)
This victory is important, and handily demonstrates the impartiality of the circuit court judges involved, and Eugene Volkoh's intestinal fortitude. Why? Chrystal Cox is, to be frank, a horrible person. A nutjob. A known extortionist. The trial that will now take place will be a waste of everyone's time and money (she's going to lose), and it's unlikely the plaintiff's will be able to recover they now-extensive legal costs and the damages they are almost certainly due.
Example: She decided to go on a vendetta against Marc Rendazza (who, ironically, is a well-known civil-liberties attorney)... First, she asked Marc Rendazza to pay for her "reputation management services." When he hold her to take a hike, she got revenge by posting all sorts of utterly made-up horrible things about his 3-year-old daughter.
Make no mistake, when this does go to trial, she's going to lose, and she's going to lose hard. All she won here was an acknowledgement that despite being a horrible person, and despite the fact she's being sued for doing the exact same sort of thing she's done in the past, the defamation has to be proven in a court instead being assumed because she isn't a professional.
Now that the 1st-amendment issues have been settled, will Volkoh now drop her like a hot potato?
On one hand, I can see what the court is getting at here, but in terms of practical effect, it could be ugly. As if we needed more reasons to not trust anything we read on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
And this case upholds your right to say such things about her without positively demonstrating them to be correct.
Remember Larry Flynt! (Score:1)
The First Amendment isn't there to protect speech you like; it's there to protect speech you detest. Remember Larry Flynt's statement:
"If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it will protect all of you. Because I'm the worst."
Re: (Score:1)
Blair: Quoth the Sheeple, "Nevermore."