Judge Marco Hernandez Ruled that Oregon Retraction Laws do Not Apply to Blogs. This is not Prudent, nor Lawful. Judge Marco Hernandez let this case go on now for years. When Judge Marco Hernandez knew full well that Oregon Retraction Laws did Apple, Do Apply and this Case Should have Been DISMISSED based on that ONE Reason alone.
Why Do Oregon Retraction Laws NOT Apply to Blogger Crystal L. Cox?
Here is a Bit More Regarding the Defamation, Free Speech Case Obsidian Vs. Cox and Judge Marco Hernandez, Blogger Crystal L. Cox and the Oregon Retraction Laws.
"Oregon’s retraction statutes provide protection from defamation lawsuits if the publisher retracts the allegedly defamatory statement according to the prescribed guidelines. The publisher has two weeks after receiving a demand for retraction to investigate the demand and determine whether to publish a correction or retraction.
The retraction must appear in the first issue published, or first broadcast made, after the expiration of the two-week deadline.
The content of the retraction should substantially state that the defamatory statements previously made are not factually supported, and that the publisher regrets their original publication. Finally, the correction or retraction must be published in substantially as conspicuous manner as was the defamatory statement.
Oregon courts have held that the retraction statute does not violate the Oregon constitution and that it applies only to publishers and broadcasters, and not to individual defendants whose statements happened to be published or broadcast."
Source of Quotes Above and Full Article Regarding Blogs and Oregon Retraction Laws. The article is Regarding Defamation Issues for BLOGS. It is From 2009
Plain and Simple, if Oregon Retraction Laws Apply to Me, Blogger Crystal Cox then the Case would have been Dismissed LONG, LONG ago.
More on Oregon Retraction Laws / Statutes
Oregon Retraction Laws NOT Applied During Obsidian Vs. Cox Paved the Way to Hide Millions in Portland Oregon Corruption. Retraction Laws SHOULD Apply to Bloggers. Case Dismissed.
plaintiff from obtaining general damages for defamation unless the plaintiff has demanded a correction or retraction and the defendant has failed to correct or retract the statement.
through a number of hoops.”
"Oregon Revised Statutes §§ (O.R.S.) 31-200 - 31.225 preclude a plaintiff from obtaining general damages on account of a defamatory statement being published in certain forms unless a correction or retraction is demanded, but not published as provided in O.R.S. 31.215.
Defendant contends that because plaintiffs did not seek a correction or retraction, they may not obtained general damages.
These statutes apply, however, only to actions for damages on account of a defamatory
statement published or broadcast in a newspaper, magazine, other printed periodical, or by radio,
television, or motion picture. O.R.S. 31.205, 31. 210.
The Oregon Legislature has not expanded the list of publications or broadcasts to include Internet blogs."
"Because the statements at issue in this case were posted on an Internet blog, they do not fall under Oregon's retraction statutes."
Source, the Opinion, Decision of Judge Marco Hernandez that Oregon Retraction Statutes do not apply to me because I am a Blogger and the information was on a blog.
Here is the Oregon Retraction Statute
"I told Judge Hernandez over and over that I am a Publisher, that I have multiple blogs, and that I am a Journalist by Law, and am Media, I gave proof best I could, he simply said I could disagree, yet he ruled that the Oregon Retraction Laws did not apply to me because I am a blogger.
I gather news, have a medium to the public, the internet is a wire service, I take interviews, I do have editing capability and have information from both sides, I did not talk to the bad guy, I saw interviews of him speaking and heard court recordings of him talking and read emails between him and insiders, I did not need to talk to Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group, the Facts proved what he had done without calling him for him to say I did not do it.
Also Note, I have published books and have around 100 ISBN numbers as "Nakaii Publishing".
I have written eBooks, and have lots of books started, however I have been focused on voice to victims for years and therefore have not got those out yet. I started Nakaii Publishing around 1996 and only published 2 books, a Poetry Book and a Medicinal Plant book. They both have ISBN numbers. At that time I got around 100 ISBN numbers, so what If I have an ISBN on my blogs, then can I say what I want? And why am I not a Publisher? Google Nakaii Publishing.and it says I am a publisher. I told the judge I am legally media, legally a journalist and he kept telling me I am not and told me I was allowed to disagree. I have disagreed for nearly a year.
I have written articles online, sell ebooks on Lulu.com, I sell my photos online and am also a Photo Journalist. Why do I not have the same rights by Law?
See Bloggers, This Judge is saying that they did not have to ask me to retract and can simply sue without asking to retract. And he is not using Colorado Law where I published from, Virginia Law where Internet Law is Based, nor Montana Law where I am based, but using an archaic Oregon Law that says
"These statutes apply, however, only to actions for damages on account of a defamatory statement published or broadcast in a newspaper, magazine, other printed periodical, or by radio, television, or motion picture. O.R.S. 31.205, 31. 210."
Why am I not a newspaper, much of what ABC, NBC, Fox and other big media says in todays world, and most big newspapers use the Internet as their medium of communication. I am an online newspaper, I have subscribers, other writes, I am a publisher, I gather and disperse news, I have videos - why am I not a newspaper?"
" The First Amendment protects all speakers, not just the press, from strict defamation liability. Moreover, protected-though-critical speech cannot be the basis for a verdict reached by a sympathetic
"The allegedly defamatory statements attributed to Cox included ones accusing Padrick of all manner of misconduct such as committing “tax fraud,” of being “corrupt,” of paying off media and politicians,
Plaintiffs alleged in their Complaint that “Defendant knowingly and intentionally published the false and defamatory statements alleged above with actual knowledge of their falsity or with actual malice or
"Under the First Amendment, contrary to the Court’s Order of November 30, 2011, a successful
As the jury found Cox liable for defamation pursuant to jury instructions that did not include such a limitation, the verdict must be overturned and a new trial granted.
Moreover, the jury’s award – $2.5 million based on a single blog post, undifferentiated from the myriad other allegedly defamatory posts that the Court eventually found to be protected speech under the First Amendment – was excessive and unsupported by sufficient evidence and thus cannot stand.
Combined with the other overreaching rulings regarding Cox’s media status, these errors will leave
"The Court Failed to Instruct the Jury that It Must Find the Defendant at Least Negligent In Order to Find Her Liable for Defamation.
In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), the Supreme Court identified a constitutional floor regarding the intent requirement in defamation claims, holding that “so long as they do not impose
Fashioned in a pre-Internet context (addressing a defamation claim concerning a traditional magazine publisher), and couched in terms of “media,” “press,” “broadcasters,” and “publishers,” the Gertz Court nonetheless did not limit its ruling to the “media” per se.
Rather, the Court addressed a factual claim before it that involved the (then relatively expensive and limited) ability to “broadcast” a message to a sizable audience, an ability that is now not just
"EFF also agrees with the Defendant that the jury’s damages award was unsupported by the evidence, providing a separate basis requiring the Court to grant a new trial.
Trial courts may grant remittitur if a jury award “is so unreasonably high as to ‘exceed any
Plaintiffs assert that the harm inflicted by the Defendant was the result of hundreds of disparaging blog posts made across a multitude of time and across dozens of sites: “Every time someone gets on the Internet and uses a search engine such as Google to research Kevin Padrick or Obsidian Finance, what they immediately find is that Padrick and Obsidian are being accused of
Memorandum In Opposition to Sua Sponte Motion for Summary Judgment filed July 22, 2011,
at p.2 (Dkt. 27). See also id. at p.13 (“Defendant Cox has falsely stated to potentially millions of Internet users that Padrick and Obsidian have engaged in criminal and civil misconduct.”).
However, the Court granted Cox’s motion for summary judgment as to all blog posts (and web sites) save one: a single post from December 25, 2010, that appeared on the www.bankruptcycorruption.com
While recognizing the highly critical and caustic nature of many of the allegedly defamatory statements, the Court ultimately found that all but one of the posts amounted to, at worst, hyperbolic expression that a reasonable fact-finder could not interpret as provably false assertions (and thus protected speech).
No evidence in the record supports a finding that Plaintiffs suffered $2.5 million in damages due
See, e.g., Siebrand v. Gossnell, 234 F.2d 81, 94 (9th Cir. 1956) (trial court may “grant a new trial when he is of opinion the verdict is against the weight of evidence …”) (citing Southern Pacific Co. v. Guthrie, 186 F.2d 926, 932 (9th Cir. 1951), Bradley Mining Co. v. Boice, 194 F.2d 80, 83 (9th Cir. 1951)). The excessiveness of and lack of an evidentiary for the jury’s award warrants a new trial.
"The Court’s Additional Erroneous Findings Regarding the Defendant’s Media Status Amplifies the
Amicus is concerned not only with the improper application of First Amendment standards to the Internet speaker in the immediate case but also with the message that the Court’s rulings will send to the broader Internet community.
Combined with the pre-trial rulings filed by the Court on November 30, 2011, they together threaten to
Therefore, in addition to granting Defendant’s motion for a new trial, amicus strongly urge the Court to reconsider two of its previous First Amendment decisions regarding the Defendant’s “media” status.
First, contrary to the Court’s decision, Oregon’s retraction statute should be
O.R.S. § 31.215 prohibits the recovery of general damages absent a demand for a retraction (that is subsequently ignored) for “defamatory statement[s] published or broadcast in a newspaper, magazine, other printed periodical, or by radio, television or motion pictures.”
Passed decades before the advent of the public Internet, this statutory list appears to reflect the legislature’s desire to identify and encompass all manner of publication channels, not a desire to pick
Rather, the legislature’s public policy goal was to encourage the publication of retractions of defamatory statements and to therefore reduce litigation and preserve judicial economy by
As the Oregon Supreme Court has noted, the retraction statute is “loosely drafted” and that the “legislature probably intended” that the protections be afforded “to those involved in the process of publishing or broadcasting.”
Wheeler v. Green, 286 Or. 99, 123 (Ore. 1979). That is, “publishers” are afforded the statutory
opportunity for retraction as “[i]t is the ‘publisher’ in that sense who has the power to determine
whether or not a correction or retraction shall be printed or broadcast. Id. As Internet publication is no different in this sense than the broad publication methods identified the statute, it too should be afforded the same opportunities and protections.
Applying the statute to Cox’s Internet posts, as a retraction demand was
Second, the Court’s finding that Cox was not “affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system” and “thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the [shield] law in the first instance” was unnecessary to reach and erroneous as a matter of law.
Order of November 30, 2011, at p.3 (Dkt. 95). O.R.S. § 44.520 states that “[n]o person …
engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by a … judicial officer
or body … to disclose … [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by
the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of
communication to the public.” By gathering information and directing her analysis and commentary to the public – even if it contained factual assertions that were incorrect, and even if some statements were defamatory – Cox was certainly “engaged in [a] medium of communication to the public” and thus afforded the protection. The definition of “medium of communication” was left deliberately broad (and non-exclusive) by the Oregon legislature:
“‘[m]edium of communication’ is broadly defined as including, but not limited to, any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.” O.R.S. § 44.510(2).
There can be no question that Internet publication qualifies for protection under the statute, and that individuals engaged in such publication directed at the public should be afforded the statute’s protections.
The Court ultimately should not have ruled on the question, and thus should have refrained from issuing its controversial dicta regarding whether Cox’s status as an Internet publisher precluded her from the shield law’s protection, because the source of Cox’s statements were not at issue.
In her Objection to Plaintiff’s FRCP 37 Motion to Compel, filed November 14, 2011 (Dkt. 66), for example, Cox disclaims a proper reliance on the shield law, identifying and explaining the source of her statements and noting that that source “has nothing to do with the blog post I am on trial for.” Id. at p.3.1 Accordingly, the question of the scope of the shield law’s protection should have been left for another day and for a situation in which a true controversy exists.
Taken together with the Court’s ruling regarding the appropriate intent requirement and the jury’s excessive verdict, these findings paint an increasingly and unnecessarily hostile landscape for online speech, one that may discourage such speakers or lead them to engage in the type of “intolerable self-censorship” decried by the Supreme Court in Gertz.
Not only may they be subject to strict defamation liability and disproportionate damages awards based on search engine placement, independent online publishers may be denied the opportunity to limit their damages (pursuant to the retraction statute) and compelled to produce their sources even though they fall within the letter and spirit of the shield law.
In addition to granting a new trial, amicus urges the Court to reconsider the broader holdings discussed above in order to ensure that speech is not unduly restrained in this new medium.
While the scope of the First Amendment protections afforded to Internet journalists is a salient and important question, here the primary question was not whether “a self-proclaimed ‘investigative blogger’ is considered ‘media’ for the purposes of applying a negligence standard in a defamation claim” but whether all speakers enjoy the same affirmative First Amendment protections regardless of media status.
Order of November 30, 2011, at p.9. Amicus supports Defendant’s motion for a new trial because the proper defamation standard was not applied below and because the jury verdict was excessive.
Moreover, amicus believes that the question of Defendant’s “media” status unfortunately and improperly emerged to overshadow the merits of the case to the detriment of both the Defendant and of Internet publishers generally.
Accordingly, amicus respectfully asks the Court to grant Defendant’s motion for a new trial and to reconsider its rulings of November 30, 2011, as to the applicability of Oregon’s retraction statute and shield law."
Source of Post