GRANTS PASS, Ore.
(AP) -- A federal appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers and the
public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when
sued for defamation: If the issue is of public concern, plaintiffs have
to prove negligence to win damages.
The 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial in a defamation
lawsuit brought by an Oregon bankruptcy trustee against a Montana
blogger who wrote online that the court-appointed trustee criminally
mishandled a bankruptcy case.
The appeals
court ruled that the trustee was not a public figure, which could have
invoked an even higher standard of showing the writer acted with malice,
but the issue was of public concern, so the negligence standard
applied.
Gregg Leslie of the Reporters
Committee for the Freedom of the Press said the ruling affirms what many
have long argued: Standards set by a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling,
Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., apply to everyone, not just journalists.
"It's not a special right to the news media," he said. "So it's a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others."
Crystal
L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Mont., now living in Port Townshend,
Wash., was sued for defamation by Bend attorney Kevin Padrick and his
company, Obsidian Finance Group LLC, after she made posts on several
websites she created accusing them of fraud, corruption,
money-laundering and other illegal activities. The appeals court noted
Padrick and Obsidian were hired by Summit Accommodators to advise them
before filing for bankruptcy, and that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court later
appointed Padrick trustee in the Chapter 11 case. The court added that
Summit had defrauded investors in its real estate operations through a
Ponzi scheme.
A jury in 2011 had awarded Padrick and Obsidian $2.5 million.
"Because
Cox's blog post addressed a matter of public concern, even assuming
that Gertz is limited to such speech, the district court should have
instructed the jury that it could not find Cox liable for defamation
unless it found that she acted negligently," judge Andrew D. Hurwitz
wrote. "We hold that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a
matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and
actual damages."
The appeals court upheld rulings by the District Court that other posts by Cox were constitutionally protected opinion.
Though
Cox acted as her own attorney, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who
had written an article on the issue, learned of her case and offered to
represent her in an appeal. Volokh said such cases usually end up
settled without trial, and it was rare for one to reach the federal
appeals court level.
"It makes clear that
bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional
journalists," he said. "There had been similar precedents before
concerning advocacy groups, other writers and book authors. This follows
a fairly well established chain of precedents. I believe it is the
first federal appeals court level ruling that applies to bloggers."
An
attorney for Padrick said in an email that while they were disappointed
in the ruling, they noted the court found "there was no dispute that
the statements were false and defamatory."
"Ms.
Cox's false and defamatory statements have caused substantial damage to
our clients, and we are evaluating our options with respect to the
court's decision," wrote Steven M. Wilker.
