Lawyer Harry L. Roque’s analysis of the decision is more accurate: “Bloggers enjoy the same protection as journalists.”
Two weeks ago the Ninth Circuit ruled in the case of Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox that even though someone might not write for the “institutional press,” they’re entitled to all the protections the Constitution grants journalists.
Judge Andrew Hurwitz said, “the Court expressly noted that ‘we draw no distinction between the media respondents and’ a non-institutional respondent.’”
This is a reversal of December 2011 by a federal judge in Oregon, U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez who said Cox, who styled herself as “an investigative blogger,” was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets.
The case stemmed from the online articles by Cox against Obsidian Finance Group LLC. She reportedly called Obsidian lawyer Kevin Padrick a “thug and a thief” during the handling of bankruptcy proceedings by him and Obsidian Finance Group LLC.
During the trial, she was asked to name her sources and she sought protection in the Oregon’s shield law not compelling media to produce sources.
