Academics and Web thinkers have spent a lot of time jawboning about whether a blogger fits the definition of a journalist. It’s an endless discussion, but this week in Oregon, the debate turned costly for one blogger.
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.
According to The Seattle Weekly, Ms. Cox, representing herself in court, argued that her post, in which she called Mr. Padrick a “thug” and a “liar,” was based on an inside source. She cited Oregon’s shield law, which allows journalists to protect sources, and refused to reveal her source.
According to The Associated Press, “U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez found last week that as a blogger, Cox was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets.”
In his decision, which might send a chill up the back of many nontraditional journalists, the judge wrote:
Although the defendant is a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” and defines herself as “media,” the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law
Ms. Cox suggested in The Seattle Weekly, “This should matter to everyone who writes on the Internet.”
Bruce Sanford, a longtime First Amendment lawyer at the Baker Hostetler law firm in Washington, said the case highlighted the fact that many shield laws were conceived before anyone began blogging.
“Media law fashioned for the traditional press of the 1960s needs a considerable amount of renovation to apply to 21st-century digital communications. The whole house isn’t a tear-down, but it’s more than a paint job — rewiring at a minimum,” he said. “Those state shield laws obviously need some updating.”
Meanwhile, Forbes did some digging and discovered that Ms. Cox, after hundreds of posts that attacked Obsidian and Mr. Padrick, offfered Mr. Padrick “reputation services” to the tune of $2,500 a month in an email to his lawyer that included lots of random capitalization and an odd pitch for “PR Services and Search Engine Management Services.”
Speaking to The Oregonian, Mr. Padrick said Ms. Cox had “no journalistic standards.”
Padrick said Obsidian Finance’s advisory business is off 80 to 90 percent this year, forcing it to cut jobs. He attributed the drop in business to the barrage of accusations from Cox.
“The damage to me is forever,” Padrick said. “The Internet is not capable of being undone. Google ‘Kevin Padrick’ and you’ll see the first 10 pages are from Crystal Cox.”
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told The A.P. that while the law needed updating, the shield hardly offered a license to write what you wanted.
“My advice to bloggers operating in the state of Oregon is lobby to get your shield law improved so bloggers are covered,” she said. “But do not expect the shield law to provide you a defense in a libel case where you want to rely on an anonymous source for that information.”