The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals has ruled that bloggers enjoy the same journalistic protections as traditional print and broadcast media when commenting on matters of public concern. Financial blogger Crystal Cox now won’t have to pay a $2.5 million jury award to an Oregon attorney and his financial services firm, whom she had accused of fraud and money laundering. Why does this First Amendment victory for a finance blogger matter to the future of the Second Amendment? . . .
Because up until now there was no clear rule on which legal standard should apply when bloggers and other new media were sued for vague ‘presumed damages’ for defamation. Should the plaintiff have to prove merely that the blogger’s statements were factually incorrect and harmed their reputation? Or should the plaintiff have to prove that the blogger acted with negligence (no fact-checking or verification) or malice (let’s screw the bastards!) in making the false and defamatory statements?
The 9th Circuit ruled that bloggers are treated as full journalists for purposes of defamation laws. Because the court found that Crystal Cox was blogging (even if extremely inaccurately) about a matter of ‘public concern’, she should have been treated just like any other journalist. Journalists cannot be liable for defamation unless the plaintiff proves that they acted with negligence when speaking about a private figure, or with malice when speaking about a public figure.
This case makes it clear that when bloggers like TTAG report on matters of public concern like gun control, they can’t be silenced by lawsuits from pissed-off plaintiffs unless they prove the bloggers were more than just wrong. They have to prove negligence or malice, just as though they were suing Rachel Maddow or Piers Morgan.
In the end this is likely to be a bigger win for the 2A crowd than it will be for the anti-2A crowd. Why? Because while Gun-Toting Hypocrite Dianne Feinstein and Billionaire Mike Bloomberg have CNN and MSNBC in their pockets, bloggers and New Media are about the only media that supports the Second Amendment. It’s a good thing that we’ll be treated the same from here on out.
Cox was represented on appeal by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who happens to be a blogger himself. His blog The Volokh Conspiracy is an outstanding legal resource for defenders of liberty in all its forms. Notable pro-2A law professor David Kopel also blogs for Volokh, as well as running his own Law And Liberty blog.
If you care about liberty and you don’t bookmark these two blogs already, it’s time to start.
Source: Volokh Conspiracy.
Please, fix the link to The Volokh Conspiracy. I was able to find it myself…just wanted to make sure TTAG is up to date.
I’m excited about this on behalf of my mom. She did the shooting portion of her Concealed Carry Permit with a Glock 19, but cannot realistically conceal one on her person. She is just too small-framed and small-handed of a woman. She (and I’d wager quite a few other women as well) has been begging for something a little smaller and thinner than the G19 that is still big enough to be easy to shoot, and which doesn’t require quite as much hand strength to manipulate. The Glock 42 fits the bill.
So what if it’s a .380? I’d rather she carry a .380 that she is confident with than leave a 9mm at home.
See how well government protects and serves?
What?! The 9th Circuit came out with an opinion that I agree with?!
What’s next? Human sacrifice. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria…
Perhaps they may even change course on 2A! [Insert wishful thinking anecdote here.] The end is nigh!
I would consider it, because my paws don’t allow for those tiny .380s like the LCP.
However, for the same size and a little weight I can keep my ppk/s, which I own and has one additional round. Or I can use my G26 when it’s colder like it is now and the extra bulk doesn’t betray it’s prescience.
I get why they did it, but I still can hope for a 9mm G43 next year.
Didn’t happen. The victim surely would have had a restraining order.
Well if you were in the ninth circuit you would be protected by this ruling. Last I saw you physical presence is in the fifth circuit.
I have a Savage Model 24 30-30 over 20ga I would sell. 20 ga never fired. 30-30 maybe 5 rounds. Synthetic stock. Pristine like new condition. This is a solid gun a lil heavy for its size but not too heavy. I am located in the southwestern part of VA. Make me an offer.
I feel for the future end user beat cop who winds up with a PC-approved piece of garbage on his hip.
Make it just as hard for an NYPD officer to get a gun, for duty, as it is for civilians! How about that for a plan?
I would never buy a gun from a manufacturer who decides they would comply with these idiotic demands.
Neat!
Oh wait, were there some words I was supposed to be paying attention to?
Anyway I thought the revolver shots with all the other cylinders lit up was fascinating. Really illustrates why you’re supposed to cover the cylinder openings with grease (for ball’n’powder shooters).
I would really like one of those cameras. Just to film random stuff in ultra-slow motion.
Yeah, those gas jets exiting the bolt carrier. I had no idea.
Smart guns? Hows about an intelligent politician every now and then instead?
Wait, wait, wait….
Did you just correlate Piers Morgan to being a real journalist!?
HA!
I don’t know if Pier’s is a US citizen or a Permanent resident. If he is a US citizen, then he had to take an oath to defend and support the constitution. Therefore, when people say things about intolerance regarding immigration, etc, we as a nation will not (and should not) tolerate those who do not embrace and support the constitution. Quite simply, if they do not support the constitution and our culture of freedom then they shouldn’t be taking the oath to begin with. Call me intolerant if you want – it is there in the oath – and it’s there for a reason.