Does a Blog's Name Really Suggest Predetermined Thought Process. I mean if I use my Blogs to get search engine ranking for tons of posts on dif. things and the name has Corruption in it, is that an automatic guilt or assumption? Is it a Bias? If I write on a blog say NorthwestTribune.com and right about something in the Southwest, is that relevant?
It seems that some judges suggest the Dotcom is in an of itself a possibly defaming bias.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Kristen Rasmussen, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press on Free Speech, First Amendment and Obsidian Finance Group V. Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger
Kristen Rasmussen, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press on Free Speech, First Amendment on Obsidian Finance Sucks Internet, Blog Defamation Case.
" Blog's context suggests that posts are protected opinion
An Oregon blogger’s disparaging “almost stream of consciousness-like” statements about the trustee in a bankruptcy case are protected opinion under the First Amendment, a federal judge in Portland recently ruled.
The opinion in Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox highlights the importance of courts’ consideration of the “looser, more relaxed communication style” of the Internet in their evaluations of allegedly defamatory online communications.
“Blogs are a subspecies of online speech which inherently suggest that statements made there are not likely provable assertions of fact,” U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez said in his Aug. 23 order dismissing the overwhelming majority of defamation claims against self-described investigative blogger Crystal Cox, who often writes about whistleblowers in the real estate industry.
Cox operates the website ObsidianFinanceSucks.com, where she publishes critical statements about Obsidian Finance, an advisory and investment firm that specializes in unique and difficult business situations and transactions, and its senior principal Kevin Padrick.
Cox alleges that Padrick engaged in misconduct in connection with his duties as trustee in the bankruptcy proceedings involving an Oregon financial firm, accusing Padrick, for example, of participating in “illegal activity,” lying to investors and committing “fraud against the courts.”
Padrick denied the allegations and, asserting that Cox’s statements damaged his and Obsidian’s reputations, sued her for defamation.
Noting, however, the “obviously critical blog title on which [the allegedly defamatory statements] appeared, the creation of a forum for ‘heated debate,’ the extensive use of hyperbolic and figurative language, and the posting of several questions rather than statements,” Hernandez concluded that, under the totality of circumstances, a reasonable reader could not conclude that the statements at issue implied a provably false assertion.
This legal standard for statements of opinion was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1990 seminal opinion case, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.
The Milkovich Court described two broad categories of opinion protected by the First Amendment: language that cannot be proved true or false by a core of objective evidence and “loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language which would negate the impression that the writer was seriously maintaining” an actual fact, or where the “general tenor of the article” negates the impression that actual facts are being asserted.
Thus, statements must be considered in context, courts have held. This evaluation generally requires a consideration of general context, which refers to the entire work at issue, and broader context, which refers to the publication in which the work appears.
In its discussion of the broader context of Cox’s online statements, the Oregon court noted that the setting and format of blog posts “create a looser, more relaxed communication style, which is less likely to be understood as containing statements of fact or implying factual assertions,” the judge said.
Moreover, Cox’s use of figurative and hyperbolic language, including terms like “jackass,” “thugs” and “fishy circumstances,” would lead a reasonable reader to “understand that [Cox’s] postings generally consist of a fanciful diatribe, fueled by her subjective belief of pervasive corruption . . . .”
In contrast to these posts, one that appeared on a different website, bankruptcycorruption.com, could lead reasonable readers to reach differing conclusions about whether the statements that appeared there contained or implied an assertion of objective fact, according to the court, which declined to dismiss the defamation claim based on this post.
While the title of this site still suggested a certain bias, it was not as strong or specific as that of obsidianfinancesucks.com, the judge said.
Moreover, certain statements in this post contained or implied assertions that could be proved true or false, including an allegation that as trustee of the bankruptcy estate, Padrick engaged in tax fraud, the court ruled.
Kristen Rasmussen - RCFP - the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Source of Kristen Rasmussen Post
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11998
" Blog's context suggests that posts are protected opinion
An Oregon blogger’s disparaging “almost stream of consciousness-like” statements about the trustee in a bankruptcy case are protected opinion under the First Amendment, a federal judge in Portland recently ruled.
“Blogs are a subspecies of online speech which inherently suggest that statements made there are not likely provable assertions of fact,” U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez said in his Aug. 23 order dismissing the overwhelming majority of defamation claims against self-described investigative blogger Crystal Cox, who often writes about whistleblowers in the real estate industry.
Cox operates the website ObsidianFinanceSucks.com, where she publishes critical statements about Obsidian Finance, an advisory and investment firm that specializes in unique and difficult business situations and transactions, and its senior principal Kevin Padrick.
Cox alleges that Padrick engaged in misconduct in connection with his duties as trustee in the bankruptcy proceedings involving an Oregon financial firm, accusing Padrick, for example, of participating in “illegal activity,” lying to investors and committing “fraud against the courts.”
Padrick denied the allegations and, asserting that Cox’s statements damaged his and Obsidian’s reputations, sued her for defamation.
Noting, however, the “obviously critical blog title on which [the allegedly defamatory statements] appeared, the creation of a forum for ‘heated debate,’ the extensive use of hyperbolic and figurative language, and the posting of several questions rather than statements,” Hernandez concluded that, under the totality of circumstances, a reasonable reader could not conclude that the statements at issue implied a provably false assertion.
This legal standard for statements of opinion was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1990 seminal opinion case, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.
The Milkovich Court described two broad categories of opinion protected by the First Amendment: language that cannot be proved true or false by a core of objective evidence and “loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language which would negate the impression that the writer was seriously maintaining” an actual fact, or where the “general tenor of the article” negates the impression that actual facts are being asserted.
Thus, statements must be considered in context, courts have held. This evaluation generally requires a consideration of general context, which refers to the entire work at issue, and broader context, which refers to the publication in which the work appears.
In its discussion of the broader context of Cox’s online statements, the Oregon court noted that the setting and format of blog posts “create a looser, more relaxed communication style, which is less likely to be understood as containing statements of fact or implying factual assertions,” the judge said.
Moreover, Cox’s use of figurative and hyperbolic language, including terms like “jackass,” “thugs” and “fishy circumstances,” would lead a reasonable reader to “understand that [Cox’s] postings generally consist of a fanciful diatribe, fueled by her subjective belief of pervasive corruption . . . .”
In contrast to these posts, one that appeared on a different website, bankruptcycorruption.com, could lead reasonable readers to reach differing conclusions about whether the statements that appeared there contained or implied an assertion of objective fact, according to the court, which declined to dismiss the defamation claim based on this post.
While the title of this site still suggested a certain bias, it was not as strong or specific as that of obsidianfinancesucks.com, the judge said.
Moreover, certain statements in this post contained or implied assertions that could be proved true or false, including an allegation that as trustee of the bankruptcy estate, Padrick engaged in tax fraud, the court ruled.
Kristen Rasmussen - RCFP - the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Source of Kristen Rasmussen Post
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11998
Jenifer DeWolf Paine, Allen Fagin, Joseph Leccese, and Gregg M. Mashberg of Proskauer Rose Law Firm Lose Major Free Speech WIPO Case - Complainant Proskauer Rose, Complaint DENIED by WIPO.
"The Parties
These complaints were filed by Complainant Proskauer Rose, “one of the largest law firms in the United States,” and by Allen Fagin, Joseph Leccese, and Gregg M. Mashberg.
The individual complainants are partners at Proskauer (as its been known since 2000), and have been quoted in various media outlets and named “Super Lawyers” by several publications.
They point out that their names appear prominently on the firm’s website and appear in firm promotional materials, and that their names appear on bills sent to clients of the firm.
Respondent Crystal Cox bills herself as an “Investigative Blogger.” According to the Complainants, she shares the views of Eliot Bernstein, who sued Proskauer in 2007 accusing it of “contribut[ing] to the Enron bankruptcy and the presidency of George W. Bush.” She uses the disputed domain names to operate sites that accuse the firm and its attorneys of fraud, theft, corruption, and perjury."
Source of Proskauer Rose - Crystal Cox WIPO Case
http://the-domain-blog.com/2011/07/08/proskauer-hosed/
"Summary of Proskauer Rose LLP v. Leslie Turner (WIPO Case No. D2011-0675),
Gregg M. Mashberg v. Crystal Cox (WIPO Case No. D2011-0677),
Allen Fagin v. Crystal Cox (WIPO Case No. D2011-0678), and
Joseph Leccese v. Crystal Cox (WIPO Case No. D2011-0679)
Filed: April 15, 2011; Decided: June 30, 2011 (Panelists: Robert A. Badgley, Richard G. Lyon [Proskauer Rose LLP case]/Andrew D.S. Lothian [other cases], and Debra J. Stanek)"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)