Journalists may want to think twice about defending Oregon blogger who lost suit

Forbes.com
Defenders of the Oregon blogger who was found guilty in a $2.5 million defamation suit “have not dug deeply enough,” writes Kashmir Hill at Forbes.com. While the blogger, Crystal Cox, promoted herself as an “investigative journalist,” Hill notes that Cox behaved more like somebody whose goal was to destroy the reputation of her target, an investment firm called Obsidian Financial Group. Cox started several websites with names like “obsidianfinancesucks.com” and “realestatehoax.com.”

Obsidian says Cox then offered it a service starting at $2,500 a month to protect its “online reputation.” (Obsidian founder Kevin Padrick forwarded a copy of the offer to Forbes.) “Most journalists would not want to include Cox in their camp,” Hill wrote. || Related: Dan Kennedy says ruling is bad because it means journalists have more constitutional rights than others (The Huffington Post) | Federal judge says Montana blogger is not a journalist (AP) | Cox “was never able to prove her accusations against Padrick were true” (Seattle Weekly)  | Who decides what is “real” journalism? (Bloomberg Businessweek)

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • http://twitter.com/benknight8 ben knight

    I’m going to just assume that you are applying nothing but First Amendment law to this case, and not deciding that you or anyone else has the right to certify anyone as a “journalist.” I am going to assume that you know the First Amendment protects all Americans, and that libel law and court prcedents apply to everyone, not just someone employed by a “news organization.” And I fear I am mistaken in my assumptions.