Ninth Circuit; Bloggers are Americans, too
Since TSO is somewhere over the North Atlantic headed for another grueling embed, it’s up to me to write your boring-ass legal post for the week. A friend sent us a link to the USAToday which proclaims that the Ninth Circuit determined that bloggers and other Americans have First Amendment protections when they’re being sued for defamation;
Crystal L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Mont., now living in Port Townshend, Wash., was sued for defamation by Bend attorney Kevin Padrick and his company, Obsidian Finance Group LLC, after she made posts on several websites she created accusing them of fraud, corruption, money-laundering and other illegal activities. The appeals court noted Padrick and Obsidian were hired by Summit Accommodators to advise them before filing for bankruptcy, and that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court later appointed Padrick trustee in the Chapter 11 case. The court added that Summit had defrauded investors in its real estate operations through a Ponzi scheme.
A jury in 2011 had awarded Padrick and Obsidian $2.5 million.
“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 D. Hurwitz wrote. “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.”
The appeals court upheld rulings by the District Court that other posts by Cox were constitutionally protected opinion.
According to the legal expert quoted in the article, the decision means that all Americans are entitled to their opinion and are protected by the First Amendment when they express that opinion publicly – that it’s not a right exclusive to the press.
But, then, I’m not a lawyer. I had two semesters of ConLaw twenty years ago and that concluded my legal studies. All I know is that I can’t have a 40-acre wheat field that the government doesn’t know about.
ADDED: For those of you lawyers out there who are interested in Blog Law, it seems that Ace is facing off with Brett Kimberlin. Kimberlin is trying to sue to learn Ace’s real name and actual address. Of course, Kimberlin has a poor record against bloggers, so it should be interesting to watch. Ace has the most unlikely legal team.
Category: Legal
Well, well, Daniel Bernath, Dallas Wittgenfeld, Paul K. Wickre, and the few hundred who have come here threatening legal action. So why don’t all of you just FUCK OFF and try to live your lives without being surrounded by all your stolen valor lies.
This is an excellent decision. Another court ruling that constitutional protections extend to all people regardless of organizational affiliation. Just like the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and all the other amendments don’t apply to protected classes or “groups” neither does the 1st.
Same flaccid case made by fat boy and ITARS violator John Giduck (author of Terror At Beslan in which he claims to have been present during “mopping up”) against SOCNET.
Giduck’s poorly written case met the same fate initially and, though anything can happen, will likely see the trashcan on appeal.
Fark You Psul
Fark You Gooeydick
Fark You Birdbath
Fark. Each. And. Every. One. Of. You.
HARD.
What in the world has happened to those “sages” on the 9th Circus? There appears to have been an outbreak of common sense in those chambers.
Kimberlin? What a moron. Ace can kick his ass blindly!
As for this decision…outstanding.
We need to get TSO’s thoughts on the Pied Piper’s looking into the “bias” on the 1st Amendment, because now everyone is using the effing 14th Amendment to argue all things equal…
In a similar vein, a fellow who makes tee shirts with parodies on them just won a case brought against him by the United States of America, specifically, the NSA and Homeland Security. The two took umbrage when the artist borrowed their emblems and placed new captions under them. The NSA’s beef was with “Peeping While You’re Sleeping” and “The only part of the government that actually listens.” My personal NSA favorite “Spying On You Since 1952.” As for DHS, he took its name and logo and beneath it wrote “Department of Homeland Stupidity.” The agencies took gas some three years ago and sought to quash the parodies. Parodies are protected speech—and you can bet the NSA/DHS lawyers knew damn well they were going to lose. But the fellow survived the unholy attempt to stifle him and the agencies settled for his $500 costs. Love a happy ending. (And Ace is sitting pretty, too. The blog’s accuser is a certified perjurer who filed after the statute of limitations had lapsed.)
Well I was going to post about Daniel A. Bernath, but I see that in the first post, OIF beat me to it. I will just second hos post. So, there you go Danial A. Bernath. GFY and then….GFY again.
@8 – “Thank you sir, can I have another!!”
@6 As Ace points out Paul Levy is one of the best lawyers you could have in a fight against those who would tear down the First Amendment. For those who want to see what Kimberlin’s record is like and what folks like Ace are facing, Popehat has continuing coverage: http://www.popehat.com/tag/brett-kimberlin/
@9 nbcguy54 Sure, bend over and assume the position. 😀
Dammit – where’s DADT when we need it.
They’re suing to find out his name? I thought everyone knew that Ace was Brandon Friedman?
Jonn,
Something left out of the USA Today piece is that Crystal Cox was evidently running a shakedown scheme. The way it worked is that she would find a company with dodgy business practices, post a bunch of trash talk on a website, and then offer to repair the damage in return for a $2500 per month “reputation management” fee.
A lawyer could probably explain the finer points of the Ninth Circuit decision better, but apparently it amounted to deciding the lower court had not properly instructed the jury both on the issue of Cox’s negligence, in the strict legal sense, and that she had caused actual damage.
The lower court jury had found that it was OK for Cox to express her general opinion about the practices of the plaintiffs, but crossed over the line in accusing them of the specific crime and circumstances of theft with no apparent evidence. The only reason this became a First Amendment issue is because Cox, as a blogger, sought protection under Oregon’s journalist shield laws. Which meant, apparently in her view, that she could make stuff up and then claim it came from a confidential source she didn’t have to reveal.
There are no good guys in this story, and Cox, by many accounts, is a woman whose dogs are not all barking.
Rhoadwarrior #15; I have Haberman in my hopper, doing some more research, so if you have stuff that you want brought to the public view, let us know at the email contact in the “Contact Us” page. I’ve read your stuff and studied your legal case. Don’t be disheartened by your experience.
These decisions need to get out into the smaller regional courts and the judges there need to get their shit together so people aren’t wasting their time defending themselves against cases involving 1st amendment rights that are without merit. The incessant assault on our rights protected by the amendments doesn’t end with free speech. It’s why I am opposed on principle to any infringement of any amendment right whether 2nd, 1st, 4th or otherwise….those people arguing for reasonable restrictions on 2nd amendment rights would do well to remember that type of logic opens the door to idiots like those mentioned in these articles to feel they have a legal ground to suppress speech. After all if you can suppress the right to bear arms, why not suppress the right to free speech? It is important to stand firm against any infringement of any of these rights, laws like the Patriot Act that infringe on 4th amendment rights find their way into our legal code because some well meaning idiot lawmaker says we need to be able to gather information without tipping our hat to the subject of the investigation so we are expanding the ability to do that…the unintended consequence of course is the restriction of 4th amendment protected rights for all of us. Laws like a national gun registry that restrict the free practice of the 2nd amendment pave the way for laws that suppress “hate” speech….the 1st amendment was never about protecting the speech we all enjoy it was always about protecting the speech that we hate, the opinions of those we despise, and the words they use to express themselves. What makes this difficult for so many who like to bash the ACLU is that we all need to understand that we need to stand up with those whose words we hate with all our being and protect their right to use those words, that means helping a war protester defend against a 1st amendment suit. It means that we protect the Westboro Baptist people from government action even while we despise their activities. These are not… Read more »
Kristen, I’m looking to speak with you about your case.
you can contact me at kristenrhoad@hotmail.com
I hate coming into a drama in the middle of the second act. 😉