Pixiq

I don't see why it is necessary to declare her to not be a journalist. This is about libel and extortion. She says she can't reveal her sources, the ones that really said those bad things. Fine. Don't compel her to reveal those sources. Let her go to trial with that defense. The jury will still see through her BS and find her guilty. She can be a journalist and still be seen as a liar.

I think anyone is a journalist if they say they are. It is a slippery slope when we let the courts make that distinction. The reason for the legal protection for journalist is to protect their sources. It is not for their own personal protection. She is not being compelled to reveal sources to get someone else convicted. This is her mess and her trial. She can simply use the 5th amendment if she doesn't want to talk, but it looks like it is kind of late for that advice.

She is a journalist, just not a very good one.

>> almost stream of consciousness-like

After suffering through her small excerpts above, that review from the judge is putting it very, very mildly.

It amazes me how many people barely demonstrate even an elementary school level of writing capabilities and then declare themselves professionals just because they have a blog website.

I think the judge was spot-on and the fact is, not even a "journalist" would be covered for libeling Ms. Cox perpetrated on these individuals and companies. Her juvenile and grammatically challenged posting clearly indicates her low level of education and sophistication in crafting the written word, and I find it offensive that this woman calls herself - or is recognized as - a "blogger." She is nothing more than an extortionist who has found a different way to strong-arm someone for protection money. Her behavior is disgusting and blackens the eye of all those who write for enjoyment and/or passion online and she deserves the judgment she received. Perhaps the worst ramification of this ignorant fool's behavior is that she sullies the status of all bloggers operating with a sense of integrity and ethics. One bad apple can indeed spoil the whole bunch, and Crystal Cox is rotten to the core.

The decision is an attack on citizen journalism and a free press. The constitution confers no special status on journalists. The establishment press promotes credentialism and legally prescribed standards, but these are contrary to the spirit and letter of the constitution. It is in the interest of government to collude with friendly and predictable mainstream journalists to defang citizen reporters who use informal methods of reporting. The establishment press is comfortable being "embedded," or regulated by government officials. Informal citizen journalists are more likely to be reporting for idealistic or ideological reasons, while the establishment press is largely concerned with profits that are maximized by not rocking the boat.

The trend toward credentialism in journalism should be strenuously resisted by all who favor a free press, and especially by non-mainstream reporters. If Big Media doesn't gain special status by formal licensing, it will continue to try to do so via the backdoor, through the establishment of "standards" for determining who is a journalist. This judge provides exactly that in defining "status as a journalist." His decision can be cited, amplified, and inculcated into American law by future courts.

A free press is never secure, as this decision and a 2010 proposal by a Michigan state senator (who practices constitutional law) illustrate.

Michigan Considering Law To License Journalists
http://liten.be//1Tcje

A Michigan lawmaker wants journalists to be licensed.

"Senator Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much like the state does with hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers," reported FoxNews.com Friday.

"Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says that the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets--traditional, online and citizen generated--and an even greater amount misinformation."

According to the bill, folks wanting to be considered as reporters would have to provide proof of:

--"Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.”
--Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.
--Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.
--Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.
--Three or more writing samples.
....

Of course there are innumerable cases in which a member of the mainstream press who did "act like a journalist" committed libel. Methods of gathering news are disconnected from truth. One of the distinctive things about the establishment press is that it is willing to convey government lies with little challenge.

We have licensed and heavily regulated doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical companies in America, yet there are an estimated 200,000 patient deaths to preventable errors each year. Credentials do not necessarily lead to higher quality or veracity.

One draft by James Madison of what became the First Amendment read:

"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."

Nothing about "unless a court finds the sentiments to be false," or "provided the speaker, writer, or publisher meets specified standards of professionalism."

The notion that a government official, a judge, should be handing out lessons in honesty should cause Americans to burst forth with laughter. It is the very dishonesty of government officials that made the First Amendment desirable.

It is interesting to note, as Eugene McCarthy did when running for president, that the constitution doesn't even require that members of the Supreme Court be lawyers. Though having graduated from law school, James Madison ("father of the constitution") found law too disreputable to practice. Few of the founders had the affection for legalism and professionalism that have been embraced by subsequent generations of Americans, who have valued regulation over liberty.

Carlos, you are dead wrong on this. As has been pointed out by posters there is NOWHERE in the first amendment that states you need special education or to work for a company to be "press".

His "opinion" is something he pulled out of his ass, it is not backed up by either the Constitution or precedent.
"The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, has said that First Amendment protections extend to "'every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.'" von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir.) (quoting Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938)), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1015 (1987)."

This does NOT mean I think Cox should have gotten off, shield laws do not give you the right to slander and extort. Cox is the one who disseminated the information, if she refuses to hand over the "source" she claims she got it from and can't provide any supporting evidence then she should be open to slander charges. As Carlos pointed out, she also tried to extort money from that company, there is absolutely no protection whatsoever for that.
To sum it up, instead of defining what he thinks the press is, and excluding her from it(and thereby excluding a lot of LEGITIMATE bloggers as well) Hernandez could easily have stated whether or not she was press is irrelevant because shield laws do not protect you from racketeering charges.

There has also been some congressional mischief regarding the "professionalization" of journalists.

Shield law: Definition of “journalist” gets professionalized
http://liten.be//53vA3

Last week, as the Senate Judiciary Committee prepared to vote on a federal shield law, I wrote about the competing definitions of a journalist in the House and Senate versions of the bill. Well, I have bad news on two fronts: The Judiciary Committee didn’t vote on the shield law, but it did adopt an amendment that would exclude amateur journalists from protection.

Previously, the Senate was working with a version of the shield law (S. 448) that defined a journalist in broad terms, focusing on the process and craft of newsgathering. That stood in contrast to the House version (H.R. 985), which passed in March and defines a journalist as someone who gathers news and information “for a substantial portion of the person’s livelihood or for substantial financial gain.”

On Thursday, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) offered an amendment to the Senate version that hews toward the professional definition in the House. Under the amendment, which was adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, a journalist is defined as someone who:

(iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity—
(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means; and
(II) that—
(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;
(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;
(cc) operates a programming service; or
(dd) operates a news agency or wire service;

As I observed last week, the shield law obviously needs a definition that limits its scope, but the professional definition, which now seems inevitable, would exclude student journalists as well as bloggers with a day job.

By this standard, Thomas Paine and Benjamin Edes are not journalists. You really want to back that?

Cops and politicians are jizzing in their pants over media being defined as corporate only. Weeeee, no more being pinched in shenanigans by that hoi polloi riff raff proletariat!

Bloggers aren't journalists!! Only real pros could plagiarize George Carlin and get their made up stories published in The Boston Globe!
http://www.boston-online.com/barnicle/
http://www.transparencynow.com/globe1.htm

She is not covered under Oregon's shield law because Oregon defines "any medium of communication" as "any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service,news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system." That definition does not include blogs or the internet.

In other states, she would have been covered. Washington, for instance, defines "news media" as "Any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book publisher, news agency, wire service, radio or television station or network, cable or satellite station or network, or audio or audiovisual production company, or any entity that is in the regular business of news gathering and disseminating news or information to the public by any means, including, but not limited to, print, broadcast, photographic, mechanical, internet, or electronic distribution;"

Did you investigate this before you posted? Are you now Liable?? See Forbes did not get my side, and that offer was Jan. 19th, 5 days AFTER they filed their lawsuit, as a Settlement Negotiation between 2 attorneys as I was Pro Se. Also this email is out of context, and your Yap here is way far away from Truth, find the truth, its out there.. tons of documents to prove that what I say about Obsidian is True.. or just Shoot the messenger and move on and do NOTHING to expose the Corruption in the US Courts that makes victims into criminals every single day..

Did you investigate this before you posted? Are you now Liable?? See Forbes did not get my side, and that offer was Jan. 19th, 5 days AFTER they filed their lawsuit, as a Settlement Negotiation between 2 attorneys as I was Pro Se. Also this email is out of context, and your Yap here is way far away from Truth, find the truth, its out there.. tons of documents to prove that what I say about Obsidian is True.. or just Shoot the messenger and move on and do NOTHING to expose the Corruption in the US Courts that makes victims into criminals every single day..

Carlos said, "But U.S. District Court Judge Marco Hernandez decided she wasn’t a journalist, so she had no protection under the shield law."

Not so.

The Judge said that she had no protection under the shield law both because (1) the Oregon Shield Law only protects stories told in print news, radio news, and television news (i.e., the Oregon legislature has not extended the Shield Law to internet media), and (2) the Oregon Shield Law only protects sources in criminal prosecutions, not civil (as here).

His decision that she was not a journalist was related to a different issue—if she were a journalist, the plaintiffs would have to prove she was at least negligent. Since he ruled she was not a journalist, the plaintiffs might be able to collect damages without proving negligence.