This week, a judge in Oregon passed down a decision about a case against a blogger who was sued by a company for defamation.
The blogger, Crystal Cox, wrote opinion and commentary pieces on her blog. Ms. Cox wrote several posts about a company called Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder. Cox accused the co-founder of fraud.
The company sued Ms. Cox for defamation for $10 million stating that Ms. Cox presented her blog commentary about Obsidian Finance Group as fact without giving proof.
Ms. Cox said she had a source inside the company feeding her information and argued that she was not required to reveal her sources because she was protected by Oregon's Shield Law that protects journalists in court who refuse to reveal their sources.
The judge in the case disagreed with Cox. Judge Marco Hernandez stated that although Ms. Cox called herself an investigative blogger and a member of "the media," she was not protected by Oregon's Shield Law because she was not affiliated with any accredited newspaper, magazine, wire service, broadcast or network television company or cable television system.
Judge Hernandez went on to state that even if Ms. Cox was protected by the shield law, the law did not apply to the case because it was a civil action for defamation.
Judge Henandez ruled that Ms. Cox is not a journalist. As a result of the ruling, the defamation charges stand and Ms. Cox has been ordered to pay a $2.5 million to Obsidian Finance Group.
Ms. Cox has no means to pay the $2.5 million to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has said he had no expectation of receiving any money but was vindicated by the ruling anyway.
Now, as a blogger who is highly opinionated, I have to admit that this lawsuit and subsequent ruling scares the hell out of me.
Here at twoday, our fabulous editor gives us the freedom to choose our own topics and stir up a little controversy when the spirit moves us. The freedom my editor gives us results in some pretty powerful articles from the writers of twoday but with the exception of a few contributors, not all of us have published books or worked for accredited news organizations meaning some of us could end up being the next Crystal Cox.
I do work for CBS as a lifestyle blogger, but it's unlikely anyone would sue me for defamation of character because of my piece about the best places in Pittsburgh to treat your partner to a night out or my piece about the five best ways to tie your scarf fashionably.
However, I have been told by some that writing from the heart here on twoday is going to get me in trouble when my pieces are about very personal things or about controversial subjects. I've even been told that I should stick to my day job of being an eyewear stylist and stop writing all together so that there is less garbage on the internet.
The case against Crystal Cox has certainly given me pause about what I write and have published online. And it has opened my eyes about what I read online, as well. Sure, I get my news from reputable sources, but I also read a lot of opinion blogs like Ms. Cox's, as well.
The decision made in the Crystal Cox case might prevent some bloggers and amateur writers from continuing to write and improve their writing skills. Might it be worth it though to limit or discourage random bloggers from saying anything they want to on the internet?
I'm not sure what the answer is. The jury in my mind is still out on this subject.
********************************
twoday magazine wants to know: Do you agree with the judge in this case or should Cox have been protected under the Shield Law? Share your thoughts on Facebook!
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
This is a tricky issue, but in this specific case, I think the ruling was correct. In general, I think bloggers who want the same protections as journalists should be subject to the same guidelines and rules as journalists in their writing: Opinion pieces should be clearly labeled as such, and bloggers who write on any topic, particularly controversial ones, should make sure they have their facts correct and that they seek to clarify both sides of an issue. Wouldn’t a good blogger seek to do that anyway, to bolster his/her credibility?
erikdolnack
Bloggers most certainly are NOT journalists in any sense of the word.
Blogging is a hobby. Journalism is essential to keeping a populace informed, which helps strengthen democracy. Responsible journalism is crucial to society, whereas blogging is a fun way to pass one’s time.
Blogging is merely opinion, and no one can study to become a “better” blogger than anyone else. Journalism, on the other hand, is a trained discipline, and one that takes years of experience to learn the craft of.
A journalist seeks out stories first-hand, always striving to be the first source to leak a good story. Every journalist dreams of being the one to break a world-important story. After Woodward and Bernstein of the Washington Post broke the Watergate scandal in the early 1970s, journalist schools were swarmed with young students wanting to emulate their heroes.
While most newspapers do have a political bias (such as the Washington Post listed above) a good journalist will seek the facts of the story and do their utmost to get the facts straight, regardless of party affiliation. For example, Bob Woodward of the Washington Post was a life-long conservative Republican, but he investigated the story that eventually brought down the Nixon White House. A blogger wouldn’t do that.
Anyone can sit around in their apartment in their underwear on a small laptop computer and blog all hours of the night. That is not journalism and does not inform anyone of any news story that hadn’t already been written about elsewhere (and likely better).
The problem with today’s media is that the huge media conglomerates today do not want to spend the money they did during the Cold War for investigative journalism anymore. If we had the kind of journalism today that we had in 1974, the Bush W White House would almost certainly have been impeached during it’s 8-year terms for any number of scandals and crimes. Instead, we had millions of opinionated bloggers. See the point?
erikdolnack
So in answer to this article’s question: in my opinion Crystal Cox should not be declared guilty for “reporting” untrue statements about the Obsidian Finance Group. As a mere blogger, Ms. Cox’s blog is mere opinion. The most she might be guilty of is defamation of character in my opinion, but even that would be difficult to prove.
This story is a word to the wise: be sure to put some sort of disclaimer at the bottom of your blogs to protect yourself from these kind of lawsuits, stating that the blog is merely commentary and biased opinion only and is not to be taken as factual reporting verbatim.
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Sally,
You do realize that defamation only requires an individual to intentionally make a false claim against another, right? And that absolutely anyone—not only journalists—can be liable of defamation, don’t you? For example: if, in this comment, I announce that you cheated on your husband (which, for purposes of this hypothetical, is not true) and someone else reads that comment which causes you to be injured, you could sue me for defamation. (Just to be safe, I don’t mean to suggest that you actually cheated on your husband.)
Also, as the judge ruled in the case to which you cite, shield laws apply only in criminal matters, and are inapposite in the Cox case. Why, then, do you discuss it at length when it’s totally irrelevant to the point you’re trying to make? You seem to be alluding to a new and dangerous threat against bloggers which doesn’t exist.
If I were you, I’d leave these thorny legal questions to lawyers and those who are familiar with defamation law to hammer out. Unfortunately, I must agree with the person who suggested that you day job.
Cheers,
Powerwalker
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
I’ve been traveling abroad for over a month and am just catching up on my periodic periodicals (lol!) and am really thankful that some things never change. For example, Ms. Turkovich never ceases to amaze me with her unfounded and self-centered opinions conveyed with glaring grammatical errors.
I second everything PowerWalker said (albeit with a few grammatical errors of her own!) and have an additional thought. Ms. Turkovich, you say that the Cox decision might prevent some bloggers from continuing to write and improve their writing skills. Will it stop you? Please?
Regards,
Hello Knitty!
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
What’s up with hating on Sally every week? Yikes!
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
What exactly is an “unfounded opinion?”
Is that like “jumbo shrimp?”
And isn’t an opinion, in its nature, self-centered?
Explain it to me again, Hello Knitty…
..Butt withs moor of teh bad grammars so’s Iz can haz an understandin at mai brain level! Iz not gud wif understands of teh proper werdz!
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
I feel you have a couple of haters…so make them your motivators, Sally!
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Happy to explain myself but first let me apologize for coming off has a “hater.” I’m not a hater by any means. I simply want you to be a better writer.
Unfounded opinion and jumbo shrimp have nothing to do with one another. The latter is an oxymoron. The former is an opinion based on a fundamental misunderstanding of a concept. In this case, Ms. Turkovich, you have misunderstood the meaning of this case. As Powerwalker properly points out, shield laws do not apply in civil cases. Accordingly, you (and all bloggers and all journalists) are not now nor have you ever been in a position to utilize such protections.
As for your grammar, I repeat that you should take some time to proof read your work.
I am sorry that you see my comments as insult rather than constructive. However, if you are really going to describe yourself as a “controversial” writer, I think you need to be prepared for criticism. I think, too, it would be beneficial to actually respond to the comments with content rather than sarcasm. But, again, these are just pointers to make you a better writer and it is apparent you have no interest in that.
Regards,
Hello Knitty
erikdolnack
It’s all good, folks. Controversy and disagreements are healthy for democracy. A world where everyone thinks the same is called “totalitarianism”. Dissent is crucial to democracy.
Besides, a bulletin-board where people don’t argue is quite dull. Face it, people love drama. That’s why reality TV is so popular. TwoDay’s posts needed a little stirring of the pot. That’s what keeps people logging onto Facebook everyday, isn’t it? They WANT to argue.
But always remember, at the end of the day, most of us have much more cause to unite than any of us would with the radical-Right today.
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
To the extent the “hater” accusations were directed at me, I emphatically disagree. The only people I’ve ever hated are brutal dictators, my last boss, and my grandmother when she makes derogatory comments about my appearance.
I offer you strong, critical comments to you, Sally, because it drives me crazy when published writers make egregious and lazy errors in their writing. Hello Knitty is correct that in the above article, your analysis of a relatively simple legal decision was not only flawed, but inapplicable to your apparent thesis. If you can’t handle your readers’ opinions, you shouldn’t post your writing on public websites. (I also concur with Hello Knitty that opinions can of course be unfounded, and I’m sure that every op-ed columnist and cable/network news pundit would agree.)
Like Natalie suggestion, I hope that you do view me and others as “motivators.” I hope we motivate you to think more seriously about the topics you choose to write about, to study basic grammar and punctuation rules, and to make more effort to stay on topic throughout your articles.
Happy Thursday,
Powerwalker