Survivalist News Network

Bloggers, public have First Amendment protection – US court

A federal appeals court has ruled that bloggers and the general public have the same protection of the First Amendment as journalists when sued for defamation. Should the issue be of public concern, the claimant has to prove negligence to win the case.

“It’s not a special right to the news media,” he said.   “So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists  and others,” Gregg Leslie, of the Reporters Committee for  the Freedom of the Press, told AP.

The federal court’s ruling came after a new trial in a defamation  case: an Oregon bankruptcy trustee was the plaintiff against a  Montana blogger who wrote on the Internet that the trustee  criminally mishandled a bankruptcy case.

In 2011, Crystal Cox, a blogger from Montana was sued by attorney  Kevin Padrick and his company, Obsidian Finance Group LLC,  following her posts disclosing the alleged fraud, corruption,  money-laundering and other criminal activities carried out by  Obsidian. It should be noted that Padrick is not a public figure,  so the facts exposed by Cox couldn’t inflict reputational damage  on him.

Padrick and Obsidian won the case, and were granted $2.5 million.

Cox addressed the court of appeals, and was joined by UCLA law  professor Eugene Volokh, who found out about her case and offered  her to represent her as an attorney in court.

“Because Cox’s blog post addressed a matter of public  concern, even assuming that Gertz is limited to such speech, the  district court should have instructed the jury that it could not  find Cox liable for defamation unless it found that she acted  negligently,” Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for a three-judge  panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We hold that liability for a defamatory blog post involving  a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of  fault and actual damages,” he added.

Eugene Volokh, who wrote an article on the issue, stated that the  case ensures that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights  as professional media workers.

“There had been similar precedents before concerning advocacy  groups, other writers and book authors. This follows a fairly  well established chain of precedents. I believe it is the first  federal appeals court level ruling that applies to  bloggers,” Volokh said.

The plaintiff, however, disagreed with the decision and was  disappointed with the ruling.

“Ms. Cox’s false and defamatory statements have caused  substantial damage to our clients, and we are evaluating our  options with respect to the court’s decision,” AP reported  Steven Wilker, an attorney for Obsidian and Padrick, as saying.

The issue of defining the term “journalist” has been on the table  for a long time.

In 1974, the Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. case marked the beginning  of the debate on the level of state protection for public or  private figures.

In September 2013, the US Senate committee voted 13-to-5 early  Thursday to approve S.987, a bill meant to protect members of the  press from government intrusion and “maintain the free flow  of information to the public.”

The legislation covered bloggers and freelancers both paid and  unpaid who work with the “primary intent to investigate  events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public  news or information.”



(Visited 12 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.