![]() Opinion of the Court Īfter the trial, on November 30, 2011, the court issued an opinion clarifying some of its pre-trial oral rulings. Ī trial was held on November 29, 2011, and the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding Obsidian and Padrick $2.5 million in damages. The court allowed the defamation claim on this one particular post to move forward. The post delved into the details of Summit's bankruptcy filing and tax liability, and made specific accusations against Obsidian and Padrick for lying on tax filings and stealing money. However, after plaintiffs submitted additional blog posts for review, the court found one post to be more factual in tone and content than the others. As a result, the court held that Cox's right to voice her opinions was protected by the First Amendment and that her statements could not be considered defamation. The court ruled that in the context of Cox's ranting, hyperbolic blog posts, the allegations are unlikely to be taken as fact by any of her audience. The court held that even though Cox's allegations of fraud and corruption are technically assertions of fact, they appeared on obviously biased blogs and Cox made no attempt to provide supporting evidence. To establish a defamation claim, the alleged defamatory material must be asserting a fact that can be proven true or false, as opposed to merely stating an opinion. The court initially intended to dismiss the defamation claims against Cox. In response, Obsidian and Padrick brought suit against Cox for defamation, asserting that all of Cox's claims were false and damaging Padrick's reputation. ![]() Cox repeatedly claimed that her investigations would expose Obsidian and Padrick's corruption. On her blogs, Cox accused Obsidian and its co-founder Kevin Padrick of committing tax fraud, paying off the media and politicians, intimidating and threatening whistleblowers, and engaging in various other illegal activities in their handling of the bankruptcy. Crystal Cox is a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger" who maintained the blogs, , and, amongst various others. Obsidian Finance Group is a financial advisory firm which was managing the bankruptcy of Summit 1031, a real estate company. It also ordered a new trial on the blog post at issue. In January 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the districtĬourt's judgment awarding compensatory damages to the bankruptcy trustee. This case is notable for the court's ruling that Cox, as an internet blogger, was not a journalist and was thus not protected by Oregon's media shield laws, although the court later clarified that its ruling did not categorically exclude blogs from being considered media and indicated that its decision was based in part upon Cox offering to remove negative posts for a $2,500 fee. For that post, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. The court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, but found one single post to be more factual in its assertions and therefore defamatory. ![]() Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Crystal Cox for maintaining several blogs that accused Obsidian and Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. Cox is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon concerning online defamation. Crystal Coxĭistrict Court hold that Cox is denied protection under Oregon's media shield statutes and retraction statutes because she is not a journalist.įirst Amendment negligence standard for private defamation actions is not limited to cases with institutional media defendants and Cox as a blogger could not be held liable for defamation unless she acted negligently.Īrthur Alarcón, Milan Smith, and Andrew D. ' Obsidian Finance Group, LLC and Kevin D. ![]() United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |