
Oregon Blogger Isn't a Journalist, Court Imposes $2.5M Judgement - privacyguru
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/12/crystal_cox_oregon_blogger_isn.php
======
kevinalexbrown
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.

~~~
saulrh
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_or...](http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/12/unlike_oregon_bloggers_are_jou.php)

~~~
CrystalLCox
I Did Provide My Source. The Court Threw It Out.
[http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2011/12/in-obsidian-v-
co...](http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2011/12/in-obsidian-v-cox-i-
provided.html) I was never asked to retract the post, and under Oregon
Retraction Laws denied that law because I am a blog and not TV, or Traditional
Broadcasting.

~~~
Natsu
Should talk to the EFF and see if they'll take your case. Representing
yourself in court is such a bad idea that even lawyers hire other lawyers to
represent them.

------
fleitz
" _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.

~~~
hristov
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.

~~~
c0riander
As they say, the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

~~~
fleitz
Yup, even if you're a rockstar lawyer, it's always good to have one because
your lawyer views the case in a more impartial manner with out the emotional
attachments that you may have to the case.

It's pretty easy to get blinders on if you're representing yourself.

~~~
nitrogen
It's not just that; AIUI if you represent yourself, you can get in a lot more
trouble for saying something later decided to be false, or making a statement
not supported by evidence. There are explicit bonuses built into the system
for those who have a representative.

------
tdmackey
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-...](http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/obsidian-finance-
group-v-cox) 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
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
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
From a programmer point of view it makes as much sense as deleting a file if
it fails to load. Not sure why poor argumentation skills should be the cause
to a 2.4M fine. They are unrelated. The woman is not to blame, the system is
for not managing situations like this. Like I am to blame if I don't manage
exceptions in my code.

~~~
cafard
Trials are to be judged on the evidence presented in court. This is
notoriously not always the case, but it is the way the law is supposed to be.

~~~
lywald
That's what I was saying. It is not justice. It doesn't matter if this is the
definition of a trial. Invent a word for something better... And invent that
something too. Until then, law is flawed.

------
wtallis
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>)

~~~
tedunangst
As kevinalexbrown noted, this also seems to be a case of people ignoring the
next paragraph of the decision.

~~~
Klinky
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.

------
taylorbuley
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
"...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
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.

------
fauigerzigerk
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.

------
bandushrew
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.

------
mikkom
> 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
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.

