Forum Moderators: rogerd
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.
"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."
t the risk of being on the wrong side of things, if title of the site you think you deserve journalistic privilege for includes the word “sucks”,
Definition of JOURNALIST
1a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium
b : a writer who aims at a mass audience
"Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For example, there is no evidence 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. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not "media.""
The bottom line is that if you're going to call yourself a journalist, you have to follow the disciplines of a journalist.
As for Cox, Johnson says that even if the court had ruled that she didn't have to reveal her source, she likely still would have had to reveal the source if she wanted to prove her statements were true and therefore weren't defamatory. In other words, the shield law, even if applied, might not have shielded Cox from the $2.5 million judgement she's been ordered to hand over.
You might have to go to jail to protect your sources in order to get the truth out, but that's the biz.
[edited by: buckworks at 8:41 pm (utc) on Dec 7, 2011]
Any normal journalist would expect trouble from that.
Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist
In the case before us, Cox made a bunch of harmful statements ... presented as facts not opinions ... that she couldn't prove were true.
wasn't really a source but someone that got a kick from the whole drama deal
The bottom line is that if you're going to call yourself a journalist, you have to follow the disciplines of a journalist.
if they have ever reported anything to the public
what standards would you expect from such folks about getting their facts straight?
She was convicted in a trial by jury and found guilty of defamation.
I'm curious: what standards would you expect from such folks about getting their facts straight?
it should be a higher standard than the one ...
She was convicted in a trial by jury and found guilty of defamation.
Uhm, no, she wasn't, unless there's a whole separate story that neither the Guardian nor the Seattle Times saw fit to mention ... no mention of a jury; the article consistently refers to the judge's decision
The case went to a one-day trial on November 29, 2011. The jury in the case found for the plaintiff Obsidian for $1,000,000, and for Kevin Padrick for $1,500,000.
