I will preface my comments by noting that I was a guest panelist at New England News and Press Trade Show last year on the very subject of who is a journo. I have also been found to be “an African American journalist” by a Federal Court Judge despite the fact that I have not worked for a large daily in 20 years, since before I went to law school. Here is my open letter to Lucy Dalglish, Ms. Cox and Judge Hernandez, who was flat out WRONG on the issue of whether or not she is a journo, note that the case law most directly on point comes from NH, where I am battling Senator Kelly Ayotte on a free press issue that is noted in the video at bottom. The issue is foreclosure fraud, I am very well versed in that as I was a title insurance producer and now run mortgage movies journal.

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2011/12/kingcast-open-letter-to-lucy-dalglish.html

Vigilant says:
December 11, 2011 at 9:58 pm
B, another little-known fact is that journalists ARE required to reveal their sources in slander cases or suffer contempt of court citation and jail time.

…..This is not always true, read about a case that I helped put together for Joanna Marinova v. Boston Herald et al., while the Herald lost on SJ and its Interlocutory Appeal and WHDH settled with a public apology, her Motion to Compel was DENIED.

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2011/12/kingcast-and-suffolk-court-of-appeals.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqHecDEG5D8

Fubert Bar, this article’s last paragraph puts the judge’s judicial wits in question. That is, since WHEN do American ‘journalists’ have to have CREDENTIALS? Since WHEN do American ‘journalists’ have to check their facts or produce PROOF?
The lamestream media dotes on subjectivity and gross opinions. Only when you can an SOB into a court of law do they have to act as though they pretend to give a damn about rights or ‘the law.’
There is NO WAY that anyone can claim that our hooker media has any consistent habit(s) of proofing or checking for FACTS. If our media whores suddenly developed some integrity, conservatives wouldn’t have such an uphill battle coping with double and triple standards. Kindly realize that the judge in this article is an OREGON judge. Did most people miss that? IF that judge is conservative, he’s RARE in Oregon.
Oregon ain’t exactly a mecca for conservative judges or examples of wall-to-wall shyster conservatives.

This lady is obviously a novice. She should know that to become a fully accredited ‘professional’ journalist, all she needs to do is to praise the crease in obama’s slacks and diss conservatism.

But wait…since when did the main stream media keep to adhering to journalistic standards such as editing or checking their facts…?
Old fashion journalism is dead!

Ive wondered about this for some time, after seeing some of the comments on this blog

Perhaps a person should think twice about calling various individuals foul names. In this crazy mixed-up world, anything is possible.

The judge was stuck with two realities:

1.) Even a journalist can be sued if the wording demonstrates malicious intent without a factual basis. If the basis is arguable, the journalist had better not go there until after the litigation is resolved.

2.) Litigation is contentious by design. One man’s thug is another man’s lawyer. I pay my lawyer to play mean, or I get a new lawyer. That’s our legal system .. Love it or Leave it.

Opinions are like A**H***s. Everybody has one. But, cross the line into slander and defamation, and a lawyer will bend you over a court bench to examine your Opinion, and the Judge will rule on his performance.

I am not sure where I heard or read this but I seem to remember something about the news industry of today is not held to any standard that holds them accountable to tell the truth. This seems to be telling us that these legitimate news agencies can lie without any recourse from those they may lie about. If this is true, then the judge has made an appropriate call.

I don’t see what the issue is. There is no first amendment conflict here at all. The first amendment does not give a person the right to make false accusations about someone else. She was not expressing an opinion when she accused him of being a thug and a thief. Odds are there was more to her comments than that, otherwise I can’t imagine that the lawyer would have bothered with the lawsuit. The media has an expectation of being able to back up their statements with evidence. Does the media distort that evidence? All the time. But there is some semblance of documentation available to protect them in the event of a lawsuit. This woman had no evidence to back up her accusations, so she has no legal ground to stand on.

To sum it up.

The media and journalist’s are allowed to lie to the public.

Anyone else can be sued.

As it was said in Apocalyspe (sp?) now, “we get weaker, while Charlie gets stronger”. Charlie’s idea of morale is some weak old rice and some rat meat.

Everyday, the fat cats in government and the major corporations get weaker with decadence, and we get stronger having to face economic abyss, or perhaps lost children taken by CPS, or tougher in jail.

I guess neither the judge, who probably was an attorney first, nor the attorney who sued can handle the truth. If you look up the definition of thug and thief, there is a picture of a lawyer next to them.

What about all the PACs spending millions to spread rumors and falsehoods about their opposition. I guess the Supreme Court has decided as long as you are spending money to disparage someone it is considered free speech.

While I believe that it’s the Media themselves that are primarily responsible for the fact that the Media has been ‘rendered useless”, and I believe strongly in our first amendment rights, I don’t feel that gives anyone licence to present damaging beliefs as if they were fact!
I haven’t read the postings and am unfamiliar with the case however, had she included phrases such as” the evidence seems to point to” or “in my oponion” I believe the first amendment would have applied!

Apparently, the judge had no legal education, credentials, affiliation with a recognized law college, proof of adhering to practised legal standards such as case law or checking the facts, evidence he produced an independent law review or evidence he ever tried to get the legal side of the story.

The real mistake here is that Cox tried to claim “privilege” and claiming herself to be a journalist. You do have a right to your opinion and the right to state your opinion. In lay terms, even if that opinion is basically factually incorrect, you still have protection as a “normal” citizen. The only deciding factors are, did you knowingly make claims that are false, and if you were given the “facts” did you continue to make slanderous remarks. Calling someone a “thug” is not usually slanderous, but calling someone a thief (false accusations) can be. In any case, by claiming privilege the onus is set back in Cox’s court. Otherwise, the claimant would have to prove prior knowledge of the “truth”, an attempt at preventing further remarks (just say “No!”), establish when Cox knew the “truth” and any real damage.

It sounds like her representation was lacking.

According to the judge, the defendant “no journalism education, credentials, affiliation with a recognized news outlet, proof of adhering to journalistic standards such as editing or checking her facts, evidence she produced an independent product or evidence she ever tried to get both sides of the story.”

There’s your lesson right there. While free speech is as important to mere mortals as it is to “media”, and the judge doesn’t obviously grasp that, free speech still comes with a price tag. The court found that this woman did a miserable job of reporting and fact checking. While she may be getting a lot of click-traffic, she was found to be sadly lacking in journalistic integrity.

Not that I’m defending “journalism” as it exists today. Long gone are the days of Woodward and Bernstein, and often all that is left are bloggers to pick up the slack. But this decision does serve notice to the blogosphere – if you’re going to claim you’re a journalist, be prepared for the consequences of your writing. As did those bloggers in the middle east who paid the price for reporting the truth on the ground the past few years, from Iran to Egypt. Or those in Mexico reporting on the drug cartels.

What’s next? The Union of Journalists, Eitorialists, Reporters and Kolumnists, (U-JERKS), will be empowered to qualify those who desire to publish. Would Thomas Paine (Common Sense) have been allowed to be qualified? Or is it to be a ‘closed shop’.

I believe that it is a well established principle that no public figure has relief by libel laws from criticism of their public ations. That is a fundamental right by the First Amendment, and one does not need a ‘press card’ to exercise that right.

Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
-Thomas Jefferson

I think our Government is morphing into something other then a republic. Our government is getting a stranglehold on we the people by taking our rights away a little at a time. Where are all the good smart people in America to challenge our Government?

This woman had the right to voice her opinion, however also has to be responsible for what she says.
If you are accused of something that is untrue, and it harms you monetarily, you may sue them. A judge determines if what you say is true, you are entitled to reimbursement from the accuser.
This lawyer claims she damaged his business by falsely accusing him of a crime. Obviously Cox didn’t have any evidence of the claims she publicly made.
Cox did not go to jail, she paid a fine. There was no infringement on the Constitution here…

I think our Government is morphing into something other then a republic. Our government is getting a strangel hold on we the people by taking our rights away a little at a time. Where are all the good smart people in America to challenge our Government?

Judge: “no…proof of adhering to journalistic standards such as editing or checking her facts, evidence she produced an independent product or evidence she ever tried to get both sides of the story.”

According to this judge, then very few print newspapers, CNN, MSNBC, alphabet networks, and even FOX News in recent months can be considered journalists, either.

This is interesting stuff. Sadly, we don’t have an H L Mencken to tell the American people what’s wrong with a judge who says free speech isn’t really intended for mere mortals. At least the judge doesn’t claim to be a ‘journalist.’
It makes me wonder how the “judge” got through law school. If he had a functional knowledge of what passes for ‘journalists’ and ‘journalism,’ he would not have been so hasty to make such a flawed decision.
Isn’t it bad enough that we have a criminal administration that hates the 2nd Amendment? If this judge is allowed to trample on the 1st Amendment, then Americans might as well conclude that the judge is an adoring fan of the current Washington schmucks who pose as “leaders.”
I wasn’t aware that someone could become a judge and know little or nothing about the Constitution.
Thank God he wasn’t a nominee for the Supreme Court.