Blogger gets same speech protections as traditional press: U.S. court

SAN FRANCISCO Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:17pm EST

Related Topics

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless she acted negligently, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.

Crystal Cox lost a defamation trial in 2011 over a blog post she wrote accusing a bankruptcy trustee and Obsidian Finance Group of tax fraud. A lower court judge had found that Obsidian did not have to prove that Cox acted negligently because Cox failed to submit evidence of her status as a journalist.

But in the ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Cox deserved a new trial, regardless of the fact that she is not a traditional reporter.

"As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable," 9th Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.

Steven Wilker, an attorney for Obsidian and the trustee, pointed out the 9th Circuit still concluded that there was no dispute that Cox's post was false.

"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," Wilker wrote in an email.

Eugene Volokh, a UCLA School of Law professor who represented Cox, said Obsidian would now have to show that Cox had actual knowledge that her post was false when she published it.

The ruling on Friday is particularly important in the era of online content, Volokh said.

"In this day and age, with so much important stuff produced by people who are not professionals, it's harder than ever to decide who is a member of the institutional press," Volokh said.

Cox's blogging activities have attracted their share of controversy. According to the court's opinion, Cox has a history of making allegations of fraud and other illegal activities "and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction."

In 2008, Summit Accommodators retained Obsidian, a firm that advises distressed businesses. When Summit filed for bankruptcy, the court appointed an Obsidian principal, Kevin Padrick, as trustee.

Cox wrote a series of blog posts, including one that accused Padrick of tax fraud in failing to pay $174,000 in taxes owed by Summit. U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez in Oregon rejected Cox's First Amendment defenses, and a jury awarded Padrick and Obsidian a combined $2.5 million.

However, the 9th Circuit found that the tax fraud allegations were a matter of public concern, which means Obsidian had to show evidence of negligent behavior by Cox.

"The allegations against Padrick and his company raised questions about whether they were failing to protect the defrauded investors because they were in league with their original clients," Judge Hurwitz wrote.

The case in the 9th Circuit is Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox, 12-35238.

(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Richard Chang)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (1)
CrystalCox wrote:
Crystal Cox, Port Townsend, WA ~ Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox DOES NOT have a “history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction”’. It is unethical, unlawful and unconstitutional for Judges to use court opinions to slander, defame and attempt to discredit Anti-Corruption Blogger Crystal Cox and other investigative bloggers, whistleblowers, and citizen journalists.

It is unethical, unlawful and unconstitutional for Judges to use a New York Times article as FACT and legal findings to somehow prove that Crystal Cox has a history of such actions. Especially in a legal opinion that gives Equality to bloggers such as Crystal Cox that are EQUAL to New York Times Journalist David Carr.

David Carr and the New York Times no longer have a “special right” that is superior to Crystal Cox as a blogger, yet Judges take David Carr’s words of Crystal Cox’s “alleged” history as FACT. Even though there is no fact, no due process, no investigation and no documented proof, or legal finding as to this allegation.

David Carr and the New York Times CLEARLY defamed Crystal Cox and with actual malice. David Carr interviewed Crystal Cox and he knew that she had no investigation, no trial, no due process what so ever for the allegations by the Plaintiff that they were “Extorted” or somehow Blackmailed.

Crystal Cox has NEVER had a criminal nor other complaint regarding blackmail or extortion. Crystal Cox has never been under investigation for blackmail or extortion. Crystal Cox has NEVER “made allegations of corruption and fraud and than sought a payment for retraction”

Crystal Cox has over a thousand Anti-Corruption Blogs and online media. Crystal has been exposing corruption for over a decade and has NEVER sought payment to stop seeking JUSTICE for the victims of such corruption.

Crystal Cox has no criminal history, no history of seeking payoffs for a RETRACTION of ANYTHING. Crystal Cox has NEVER receive payment to retract any blog post or other online comments, reporting, news, articles or “mediums of communication”.

Investigative Anti-Blogger Crystal Cox remains dedicated to giving a voice to victims of corrupt courts, judges, lawyers, law firms, commissioners, corporations and more.

Jan 19, 2014 12:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.