FREE SPEECH: blogger found not to be a journalist immune from defamation liability

Lead

Political bloggers beware of what you say in your blogs. Your speech may not be free!

In a defamation suit, a court could rule that you are not a journalist who has protection under the First Amendment.

Article (Quote):

Crystal Cox, a Montanan who calls herself an investigative blogger and produces several blogs about the law, was sued in January by the investment firm Obsidian Finance Group over several opinionated blog posts that were highly critical of Obsidian and its co-founder Kevin Padrick. The firm sought $10 million in damages. Although the judge threw out several of the firm’s claims, he ruled against her on a single post and ordered her to pay $2.5 million in damages.

Source:   David Carr: “In $2.5 Million Judgment, Court Finds Blogger Is Not a Journalist,” THE NEW YORK TIMES

MJB’s Take

This court decision could chill bloggers who believe they have the same First Amendment rights of free speech protecting them from defamation liability suits the same as journalists.

Related Articles

• Ore. judge rules blogger is not journalist (seattlepi.com)
• Blogger not eligible for media shield law, hit with $2.5M judgment (arstechnica.com)
• Is a blogger a journalist? Not in Oregon (chicagoreader.com)
• Federal court rules investigative blogger is not a journalist, orders her to pay $2.5 million in defamation lawsuit (digitaltrends.com)
• Blogger in Oregon Loses Defamation Case, Judge Weighs in on Who is “Really” a Journalist (reason.com)
• Blogger Must Act Like Journalist To Be Treated Like One (pixiq.com)
• Crystal Cox Case Scares Blogosphere: Blogger Fined $2.5, Judge Rules Press Protections Don’t Apply (inquisitr.com)
• BLOGGERS BEWARE!!! – Crystal Cox, Oregon Blogger, Isn’t a Journalist, Concludes U.S. Court – Imposes $2.5 Million Judgement on Her… Whose Next? (richardemanuel.wordpress.com)
• Crystal Cox Loses $2.5M Suit: When Is a Blogger a Journalist? Or Not? (blogher.com)
• Bloggers Put On Notice: You Are Not Journalists (jroycroft.wordpress.com)
• Oregon Blogger’s Fate Could Impact Bloggers Everywhere, Sued for $2.5 Million (blogworld.com)

 

CAIN: ain’t no more Herman Cain for political media to beat on

Lead

Herman Cain has suspended his campaign.

By devoting extensive coverage seeking to humiliate Cain and to derail his candidacy, mainstream political media lost its way. It utterly failed  its fundamental role in American presidential politics to stay focused, and to adequately inform the American people about the issues of national concern on the business and affairs of the country, the presidency, and the Presidential candidates in the GOP race for the Republican nomination.

Media (Quote):

After Herman Cain suspended his presidential campaign, other Republican presidential hopefuls praised him for energizing conservative voters and wished him well.

Source:  Danny Yadron, “Former Rivals Praise Herman Cain,” WSJ WASHINGTON WIRE BLOG

Query

Please take a moment and reflect.

If you wish to comment, that would be appreciated. But if not, please just take a moment and think.

Set aside the fact that Herman Cain is a Republican, that he is black and that he is conservative. Just reflect that up to now, he was a candidate in America for the GOP nomination to run for President in Election 2012.

Whether you agreed or disagreed with his philosophy, viewpoints and politics; whether you would have voted for him or not; Herman had every right as an American citizen to enter upon the playing field; to compete in the game of Presidential politics with Mitt, Rick, Newt, Jon, Michelle and Ron and whoever else seeking to run for President; and, to engage in conversations about the business and affairs of the nation.

This is still the United States of America.

Every qualified man and woman still has an unfettered right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, to enter the race; to say whatever he or she wants to say; and, to do of course within reason whatever he or she wants to do to run for office; get his or her message out to the voters and seek the wins needed in the upcoming primary elections for GOP candidates who want to secure the nomination of the Republican Party, and run against Barack Obama in Election 2012 for President of the United States of America.

Whether Herman had $10 in the bank, or $10 Million, that was his fundamental right. And, it was taken from him.

How?

Not by the well-informed decision-making of voters at the ballot box.

But, essentially by the personal decisions of reporters, analysts, commentators, contributors, writers, editors and others in political media hot to trot about generating a torrent of media coverage concerning sex stories from three unhappy and unimportant women in the business and affairs of the nation anxious to tell their alleged stories from years gone by, but could never adequately explain why they wanted to tell their stories in the first place.

Who really cares, and in reality what difference should it have made to the state of the union and the presidency, what happened 14 years ago to the former National Restaurant Association staff employee who settled her claim, got paid, got another job, made another sexual harassment complaint and at least until one month ago was moving on with her life and career?

Who really cares, and in reality what difference should it have made to the state of the union and the presidency, what happened to the former applicant for a job at the NRA who did nothing and said nothing for all these years about an alleged sexual assault which took place 13 years ago?

Who really cares, and in reality what difference should it have made to the state of the union and the presidency, what allegedly has happening for 13 years  with a consenting women who allegedly was involved a love affair?

Mainstream political media should have been disciplined and stayed focused on the issues affecting the state of the union by keeping Americans informed about those issues and the positions of the GOP candidates on those issues. Just about every media outlet in the nation, however, got off mission,  went rogue, and wasted tons of ink and air time on what amounted to tabloid trivia.

It was mainstream political media coverage in prime time, to use the words of Ron Paul from another context: “beneath the office of the presidency.”

That’s our take, what’s yours?

 

CONGRESS: constitutional amendment introduced to overturn Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate spending on politics

Lead In

The Supreme Court ruled last year that corporations are persons, for the purpose of the First Amendment, which have a free speech constitutional right to tap corporate treasuries and spend unlimited corporate funds on politics. A constitutional amendment has been introduced in the House to overturn the decision.

Image via Wikipedia

Justices of the Supreme Court

The Amendment raises several important policy questions: (a) whether corporations will voluntarily limit their political spending in the 2012 Elections until the fate of the Amendment is resolved by Congress; and, (b) whether the candidates for President will voluntarily impose contribution limits on corporate contributions to their campaigns?

The political question is whether introduction of the Amendment is, as stated in the article, “one of the greatest signs yet that the 99 Percenters are having an impact” on national policy.

Media Quote

*  *  *Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.

Deutch’s amendment, called the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment, would overturn the Citizens United decision, re-establishing the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and to effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending.

Source: Read THINK PROGRESS

Background

The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is unprecedented in American jurisprudence and national politics.It  could unleash unlimited corporate expenditures of treasury funds into the political process without any comments by shareholders. That could result in billions of dollars of heretofore untapped and unavailable corporate cash pouring into elections.

One view is that the full impact of the decision, authorizing an unprecedented and historic expansion of corporate political advocacy directed at policy decisions, and to the election or defeat of candidates for political office, could be devastating.

Another view, as articulated by Dr. Stephen R. Weissman, a former associate director for policy at the Campaign Finance Institute, is that the “decision is unlikely to change the political situation on the ground very much.” Read Los Angeles Times, Opinion (January 28, 2010).

MJB’s Take

The decision in Citizens United could usher into the mix new era campaign  technologies, communications strategies and fierce rapid responses by savvy politicians to hits from corporate sponsored political ads on a range of policy issues some of which may not directly concern the business operations of corporations.

Corporations will raise their profiles, advocate and engage in politics by hitting politicians for their  positions on policy issues. Politicians in turn will intuitively respond and hit back.

Increased corporate spending for political advertising will generate significant mainstream political media coverage of the controversies. The coverage in one sense may heighten the public’s interest; but, in another sense, the coverage will diminish the quality of the information disseminated to the public by the media which generally should empower them to take part more effectively in the political process by acting on what, but for the portal to portal coverage of controversies, otherwise would be unbiased and quality information.

Of course, the clear rebuttal to that argument is that heightened public interest is a good thing because it expands the base of stakeholders in the game on the political playing field. Hence, the political take from the Occupy Wall Street movement which is apparently grafted into the title of the proposed Amendement.

In addition, it can be argued that the more intense the controversies, the policy debates, the attacks on politicians and the  media coverage, the better for the political process in general.  Savvy politicians and candidates for political office can take advantage of the new-found field of political play, expensed for the most part by corporate political money, and prosper.

The clearest example to illustrate the point is the low-budget but effective campaign by Herman Cain. Cain was able to use low-budget campaign tools, campaign strategies and the Internet to fight back against a barrage of mainstream media coverage, which for the most part was negative; take part in the debates on policy issues; and, position himself as a contender to be taken seriously for the GOP nomination.

Certainly, there will be  legitimate concerns expressed about the possible corrosive influence of corporate political money on policy making and the outcomes of elections. But, good politicians should be ready to hit back if they are attacked just as Herman Cain has been able to do by employing new media tools and strategies.

Related Coverage & Web Articles

• Democrats seek to overturn Citizens United via constitutional amendment (shortformblog.tumblr.com)
• ‘Citizens United’ Fight: Constitutional Amendment Against Corporate Cash Introduced By House Dems (huffingtonpost.com)
• The Guy Who Proposed Amending the Constitution to Overturn Citizens United Faults Senators for Trying to Do That (reason.com)
• Rep. Deutch Introduces OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment to Ban Corporate Money In Politics (stevebeckow.com)
• Citizens United Going Down? Democrats Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Ruling (brandtstandard.com)
• Editorial: Even Worse Than Citizens United (nytimes.com)
• Brad Smith: Another Attack on Corporate Speech (online.wsj.com)

Corporations may not necessarily be anxious to begin spending corporate treasury funds on politics because of the uncertainty whether the Amendment will be passed and adopted by the States paticularly if the spending decisions lack shareholder approval. Shareholders are bound to sue executives should such spending decisions be made.

Candidates may need to consider voluntarily imposing limits on corporate contributions to their campaigns. Although the expenditures in question technically are independent expenditures made without input of campaigns, the court of public opinion is bound to connect them. So it may be better for candidates to get in front of the issue and potential controversy by initiating voluntary measures.

Among other things, the movement of the 99 Percenters could have influenced the decision of the Representative to introduce the Amendment

.

End Notes

Thank you for visiting the site, and reading the content.

Please feel free to ask questions, make comments, or reply to any of the questions or comments posted.

Generally, we will respond to all questions and comments.