BENCH UPDATE: Bloggers Have First Amendment Protections, Federal Appeals Court RulesPosted: January 17, 2014 Filed under: Breaking News, Law & Justice, Mediasphere, U.S. News | Tags: Andrew D. Hurwitz, Freedom of the press, Oregon, Supreme Court, Supreme Court of the United States, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States courts of appeals 4 Comments
GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) Jeff Barnard reports: A federal appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers and the public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when sued for defamation: If the issue is of public concern, plaintiffs have to prove negligence to win damages.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial in a defamation lawsuit brought by an Oregon bankruptcy trustee against a Montana blogger who wrote online that the court-appointed trustee criminally mishandled a bankruptcy case.
The appeals court ruled that the trustee was not a public figure, which could have invoked an even higher standard of showing the writer acted with malice, but the issue was of public concern, so the negligence standard applied.
Gregg Leslie of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press says the ruling affirms what many have long argued: Standards set by a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., apply to everyone, not just journalists.
“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.”
Crystal L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Mont., 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…
- Court: Bloggers have First Amendment protections (seattlepi.com)
- Court: Bloggers have First Amendment protections (wfaa.com)
- Court: Bloggers have First Amendment protections (ktvb.com)
- Court: Bloggers Have First Amendment Protections (talkingpointsmemo.com)
- Bloggers = Media for First Amendment Libel Law Purposes (volokh.com)
- US appeals court rules bloggers, public have same First Amendment protection as journalists (canadianbusiness.com)
- Blogger gets same speech protections as traditional press-U.S. court (uk.reuters.com)
- 9th Circuit Issues a Blogger-Friendly First Amendment Opinion – Obsidian Finance v. Cox (ericgoldman.org)
- Blogger gets same speech protections as traditional press-U.S. court (trust.org)
Reblogged this on Blogger at the Edge of the Universe..
Reblogged this on The Grey Enigma.
[…] Pundit from another Planet GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) Jeff Barnard reports: A federal appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers and […]
[…] BENCH UPDATE: Bloggers Have First Amendment Protections, Federal Appeals Court Rules (punditfromanotherplanet.com) […]