Crystal Cox Blogger, "Blogger's First Amendment Rights Upheld" - Crystal Cox Case. Defamation, Libel, Slander Lawsuit.

" Bloggers can rest easier as they post articles from their computers.  

They have equal First Amendment rights with trained journalists.

That was the recent decision of the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a defamation lawsuit brought against a blogger in California. 

The decision went even further, confirming that First Amendment rights are applicable to everyone, and that everyday citizens and Pulitizer Prize-winning journalists journalists all possess the same rights under the First Amendment.

The unanimous 9th Circuit decision reversed a $2.5 million judgment against blogger Crystal Cox by Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick. 

The verdict followed a nearly inexplicable District Court opinion allowing the case to go to trial on the basis that Ms Cox could not produce evidence that he was a trained journalists engaged in that profession, that he could not claim the First Amendment protection of the New York Times v. Sullivan case.

For the decision in Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox, CLICK HERE.

For most First Amendment lawyers, the surprise was not the 9th Circuit's reversal, but the District Court's original decision, which seemed to go against a half-century of law to the contrary, although seldom applied to the new technology of blogging.

The lawsuit arose from a post by Ms Cox accusing Obsidian and Padrick of tax fraud in the handing of a company that was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The 9th Circuit covers most of the western-most United States, including California.  

The United States Circuit Courts of Appeal are the second highest federal courts, next to the US Supreme Court."

source and Full Article
http://lawforwriters.blogspot.com/2014/01/bloggers-first-amendment-rights-upheld.html

More on the Crystal Cox Defamation Case

http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/

http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/

http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/

First Amendment to the United States Constitution; Crystal Cox Blogger, Defamation Case; Obsidian Finance Group v Cox.

"The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox (2014)^[178] ruled that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages.^[179]

Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning public matters can only be sued if they’re negligent i.e. the plaintiff must prove the defendants negligence – the same standard that applies when news media are sued.

The federal appellate court thus essentially said that journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment^[180] and, in the words of Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, that nonprofessional press, especially bloggers, "for First Amendment purposes, have the same rights as others do, as for example the institutional media does."^[181]

The unanimous three-judge panel rejected the argument that the negligence standard established for private defamation actions by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1974's Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. only applied to "the institutional press."^[181] 

"The Gertz court did not expressly limit its holding to the defamation of institutional media defendants," Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for the three-judge panel. "And, although the Supreme Court has never directly held that the Gertz rule applies beyond the institutional press, it has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers."^[181] 

Hurwitz wrote: "The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings or tried to get both sides of a story. …

In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue -- not the identity of the speaker -- provide the First Amendment touchstones."<sup>[182]"

Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution</sup>

Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox; "A recent case out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is helping to legally define the protections of bloggers on the Internet."

Do Search Engines HAVE First Amendment Rights? 

Does Google Blogger Have First Amendment Rights? Is Google a Publisher?

"As the internet evolves the rights and responsibilities of its users become more clearly defined.  

Courts have found themselves in the position of having to apply the common law precedent to the Internet.  

A recent case out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is helping to legally define the protections of bloggers on the Internet. Obsidian Fin. Grp., LLC  v. Cox, No. 12-35238, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00057-HZ (9th. Cir. Jan. 17, 2014).

The facts are not as clear as I would have liked, so I will try my best to distill them.  Summit Accommodators voluntarily petititoned for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in late 2008. 

The defendant Kevin Padrick, a senior principal and co-founder of Obsidian was appointed as a bankruptcy trustee. Crystal Cox is a self-appointed real estate whistleblower.  Cox created and wrote content for blogs: http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com and http://www.summit1031sucks.com.  

Some of the claims Cox made about Padrick on the blog, he is: corrupt, committed tax fraud, and called him derogatory names.  Obsidian Fin. Grp., LLC v. Cox, CV-11-57-HZ, 2011 WL 2745849 (D. Or. July 7, 2011).  Obsidian Financial Group and Padrick sent Cox a cease and desist letter, but she continued anyway.

One observation the district court made was Cox did not try to attempt any neutrality.  With domain names like http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.comvisitors should know that the blog will take a critical stance, “which expressly discloses its bias against bankruptcy courts, bankruptcy trustees.”  Obsidian Fin. Grp., LLC v. Cox, CV-11-57-HZ, 2011 WL 2745849 (D. Or. July 7, 2011) adhered to in part on reconsideration, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D. Or. 2011) aff’d, 12-35238, D.C. No 3:11-cv-00057-HZ (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2014).  

Many of the blog posts were not counted as libelous because they were based upon opinion rather than fact.  However, the district court found one blog post libelous in nature because it made “fairly specific allegations [that] a reasonable reader could understand . . .to imply a provable fact assertion.”Obsidian Fin. Grp., LLC v. Cox, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1233 (D. Or. 2011) aff’d,12-35238, 2014 WL 185376 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2014).

Cox then asserted that the First Amendment offered her protections from liability deriving from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).  First, she claimed that the subject matter was of public concern.  Second, both Padrick and Obsidian were public figures.  The judge rejected both of these arguments saying that neither Obsidian nor Padrick sought to be a public or limited public figure.  Instead, Cox created the controversy around them.

Both parties appealed.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reasoned that since the New York Timescase, courts have not given any extra protection to journalists than they have anyone else. “[E]very other circuit to consider the issue has held that the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan and its progeny apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers. . . We agree with our sister circuits.”Obsidian Fin. Grp., LLC v. Cox, 12-35238, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00057-HZ (9th. Cir. Jan. 17, 2014).

The Court went even further by saying that Padrick’s actions were a matter of public concern.  Since Padrick was the trustee of failed ponzi scheme that involved tens of millions of dollars his actions were of public interest.  Furthermore, because Cox accused Padrick of fraud among other things, her accusations were also a matter of public concern.

......

In my opinion, part of the issue is definitely how Cox made the speech.  By linking together multiple websites together to voice her opinion, Cox manipulated the search engine results.  Professor Eugene Volokh, who represented Cox at the oral argument in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, argued previously that search engine rankings are a type of corporate speech made by the search engines.  If Professor Volokh’s argument is believed, then Cox’s speech should not be considered pure at all.

I do not believe there is any case law on whether search engine manipulation can be considered defamation or not.  However, this technological part of the argument is something that the Court missed in their analysis.  

In a later post, I will analyze Professor Volokh’s argument about search engine rankings being considered speech, and the logical extension, if search engine rankings are manipulated can that be considered defamation."

Source
http://commonlawaz.wordpress.com/tag/speech/

First Amendment Protection for Search Engines, Eugene Volokhhttp://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/SearchEngineFirstAmendment.pdf

Obsidian v. Cox Lower Court Docket

http://ia600403.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.ord.101036/gov.uscourts.ord.101036.docket.html

More on the Crystal Cox Case

http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/

http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/

Blogger Crystal Cox; Crystal Cox Defamation Case; Libel, Slander, Defamation Law. Free Speech and Bloggers Rights. "“This case is the first one from a federal court of appeals that specifically protects the rights of bloggers,” said UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh, who represented Cox without charge on appeal.

Crystal Cox held her ground and held on to this Appeal, for the Greater Good of ALL whistleblowers, citizen journalists, and anti-corruption bloggers. Despite many settlement offers, threats, and even the 'bad guys" trying to auction off her right to APPEAL.

"SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court unanimously overturned a defamation award against a blogger Friday, ruling that 1st Amendment protections for traditional news media extend to individuals posting on the Web.

“The protections of the 1st Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities,”  Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote for a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The panel said its holding was the first of its kind within the 9th Circuit but that other circuit courts already have extended protections for journalists to individual speakers.

.....

“This case is the first one from a federal court of appeals that specifically protects the rights of bloggers,” said UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh, who represented Cox without charge on appeal.
He said the ruling would also protect other individuals, including those who leaflet and who speak out on behalf of politicians or activist groups."

Source
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-blogger-1st-amendment-20140117,0,5295817.story#ixzz2zBErr0z7


More on the Crystal Cox Lawsuit
http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/

Crystal Cox Blogger; AN IMPORTANT VICTORY for FREE SPEECH. "In an important victory for free speech advocates, the Ninth Circuit has joined other courts in establishing that authors protected by the First Amendment need not be journalists to have such robust protections."

"In Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, — F.3d —  (2014) (filed Jan. 17th, 2014), the Ninth Circuit overturned a lower court decision that limited certain First Amendment protections to institutional journalists. 

The Court explained that “protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story.”

In aligning the Ninth Circuit with other circuits which have addressed the issue, the court reaffirms that negligence is the minimum legal standard for any case involving matters of public interest (and possibly all cases). To receive general damages without suffering specific harm and to receive punitive damages, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant published the statements with actual malice, meaning intentional knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth.

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court established the modern First Amendment framework. Public officials must prove actual malice to prove liability. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, (1967), then extended this standard to public figures. A decade later, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 350 (1974), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment required a negligence standard for private defamation actions. Significantly less than the actual malice standard, it nonetheless established that there could not be liability without fault.

In Obsidian Financial Group, the Ninth Circuit does not suggest the defendant is blameless:

Crystal Cox published blog posts on several websites that she created, accusing Padrick and Obsidian of fraud, corruption, money-laundering, and other illegal activities in connection with the Summit bankruptcy. Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction. See David Carr, When Truth Survives Free Speech, N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2011, at B1. Padrick and Obsidian sent Cox a cease-and-desist letter, but she continued posting allegations.

The accusations and statements, however, were difficult to view as factual assertions. Where there were assertions of fact, the court explains, the plaintiff must establish the negligence of the statements.

The Ninth Circuit also sidestepped the issue whether the Gertz negligence standard applies to matters of purely private concern. It noted the unresolved question, when it stated that “the Supreme Court has ‘never considered whether the Gertz balance obtains when the defamatory statements involve no issue of public concern.’” (quoting Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, 472 U.S. 749, 757 (1985) (plurality opinion)).

Instead, the Ninth Circuit noted that the blog was made available to the public at large, just as every blog does. Moreover, the court noted that “public allegations that someone is involved in crime generally are speech on a matter of public concern.” So instead of answering whether the negligence standard applies to private matters, the court expanded the realm of public discourse to almost any public accusation.

This strategy has the effect of expandingthe negligence standard to almost any claim. It may leave certain personal matters personal, though this is unclear. It could also leave certain formats, such as personal emails, texts, and friends’ lists as matters of purely private concern, but undoubtedly many of allegedly defamatory posts on such platforms will also be matters of public concern.

The distinction between matters of public concern and purely private matters has less and less meaning, and the distinction is likely to continue to erode in the context of defamation, though perhaps remain relevant in some issues involving privacy.

Nonetheless, the case is an important victory for free speech interests.

 Of course, this does not mean anything can be published with impunity. Negligence is not a terribly difficult test to meet and those plaintiffs who have truly been harmed will still have their day in court. It is difficult to be the subject of online attacks, but the rules of law should apply equally to all speakers, journalists, bloggers, and citizens alike. In the Ninth Circuit, it now does."

Source
http://lawandinformatics.com/2014/01/23/ninth-circuit-provides-important-protection-to-bloggers/

Oh and a Bit on the Ninth Circuit Judges DEFAMING and Slandering me, Crystal Cox

http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/2014/04/obsidian-finance-group-v-crystal-l-cox.html

http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/2014/04/crystal-cox-case-obsidian-finance-group.html

For More on the Crystal Cox Defamation Case

http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/

http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/

Blogger Sued for Defamation; Bloggers Rights; Free Speech Rights Blogger; Crystal Cox Blogger. "Bloggers all over the US are rejoicing as are we" ; Blogger Crystal Cox Gets Equal Rights for ALL Bloggers as Traditional Journalists, Institutional Press, Big Media.

" Crystal Cox is a blogger who wrote about the Obsidian Finance Group and their practices. She was not very flattering in her descriptions of the company and its principle owner. Obsidian sued Cox.

On January 14, 2011, Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, and Obsidian Senior Principal Kevin Padrick filed a defamation suit in Oregon federal court against blogger Crystal Cox. The complaint alleged that Cox had written a number of false and defamatory statements on her website, obsidianfincancesucks.com, and on “other websites.” The statements quoted in the complaint involve “tax fraud,” “fraud against the government,” “hir[ing] a hitman,” and other statements.

As the case wound through the Courts, a district court eventually decided that as a blogger, Cox did not warrant the First Amendment protections of a journalist.

Law professor Eugene Volokh and others signed onto to represent Cox.

On January 17, 2013 the Ninth Circuit Court issued its decision giving Cox the same protection as a journalist. Interestingly enough, the decision was based in part on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The Court wrote, in part:

The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With 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.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue — not the identity of the speaker — provide the First Amendment touchstones.

Bloggers all over the US are rejoicing as are we.

The decision is short, so we are including it below the fold."

Source

http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/2014/01/19/bloggers-and-first-amendment-fans-rejoice/

For More

http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/

http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/

Crystal Cox Blogger; Crystal Cox Defamation Case; Ninth Circuit Grants First Amendment Protection to Bloggers

"

Online news analysis and reporting through blogs, tweets, or social media posts has experienced a rapid growth in popularity, but remains distinguished from traditional media outlets such as newspapers or TV networks.  

The gap is closing, however, and online publishers took another step towards legitimacy this week when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that bloggers are afforded the same protection from defamation lawsuits as institutional media outlets enjoy.

Ninth Circuit Grants First Amendment Protection to Bloggers

In Obsidian Finance Group v Cox, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seems to have settled the question of blogger liability for defamation by offering internet writers the same protections historically afforded to traditional Media.  

Obsidian emerged as a case between Obsidian Finance Group and blogger Crystal Cox over blog posts published by Cox accusing Obsidian of fraud, money laundering, and other financial crimes when the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  Although most of the statements made by Cox were constitutionally protected as opinion, one statement accusing Obsidian of tax fraud resulted in a $2.5 million judgment against Cox for defamation.

The judgment was possible because the trial court determined that Ms. Cox failed to “submit evidence suggestive of her status of a journalist,” which means she was not provided the same protection against libel that newspapers and other traditional media sources have. 

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit disagreed, and determined that the First Amendment protections offered to institutional media apply also to individual speakers who assert their statements via non-traditional media outlets such as blog posts.  

Holding that the identity of the speaker was not important in defamation cases, the Ninth Circuit rejected the notion that institutional press has First Amendment protection that individual speakers, such as bloggers, do not."

Source and to Read more: http://www.freeadvice.com/news/Government+Law/blogger-defamation-protection.htm#ixzz2zvrSLqUP 

More

http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/

http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/