Bloggers cannot enjoy journalists’ legal privileges, says judge

Bloggers cannot enjoy journalists’ legal privileges, says judge
December 7, 2011 – Guardian – Gleenslade Blog

A blogger in the US state of Oregon has just been ordered by a court to pay $2.5m (£1.6m) to an investment company because of a defamatory posting.

Crystal Cox was sued by investment firm Obsidian Finance Group for writing several blog posts that were highly critical of the firm and its co-founder Kevin Padrick.

She argued in Portland district court that she should have the same legal protection that is afforded to journalists.

She said her posts – a mixture of facts, commentary and opinion – were based on material supplied by a whistle-blower whose identity she refused to reveal.

She considered herself to be a journalist and should therefore be entitled to protection under media shield laws that allow journalists not to identify their sources.

But Oregon’s shield law doesn’t explicitly include bloggers in its list.

The judge’s opinion is fascinating because it suggests there is one law for journalists and another for citizens. He said:

“Although [the] defendant is a self-proclaimed ‘investigative blogger’ and defines herself as ‘media,’ the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law.”

That sounds like it’s going to require a supreme court hearing at some stage. Cox, who runs several sites, including one called obsidianfinancesucks.com, plans to appeal, rightly saying: “This should matter to everyone who writes on the internet.”

Though Obsidian sued over several postings, the judge found against Cox on only one item, ruling that it was defamatory precisely because it was more factual in tone than her other posts. …source