Court rules blogger isn’t shielded from liability for defamation

Listen to this article

By Pat Murphy
Dolan Newswires

A blogger isn’t entitled the statutory and constitutional protections of a journalist when sued for defamation, a U.S. District Court in Oregon has ruled in entering a $2.5 million judgment.

The plaintiff is an Oregon attorney who is the part owner of a company that advises distressed businesses.

The defendant maintained a website and blog that mounted a series of attacks on the plaintiff regarding his actions in a certain bankruptcy case. In her blog, the defendant called the plaintiff a “thug,” a “liar” and a “thief,” suggesting that he regularly engaged in fraudulent and illegal activity.

When the plaintiff sued for defamation, the defendant asserted that she was an “investigative blogger” protected by the First Amendment and an Oregon law that shields journalists.

With respect to the state shield law, the court observed that “the record fails to show that [the defendant] is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law in the first instance.”

As to the defendant’s First Amendment claims, the court first decided that the plaintiff was not a public figure required to show “actual malice” in order recover damages. In addition, the court concluded that the plaintiff was not obligated to prove negligence under the standard of liability recognized for actions against members of the media.

“Defendant cites no cases indicating that a self-proclaimed ‘investigative blogger’ is considered ‘media’ for the purposes of applying a negligence standard in a defamation claim,” the court said.

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox, No. CV-11-57-HZ. Nov. 30, 2011. Lawyers USA No. 993-3417.