> Crystal Cox never really denied that the things she wrote were false and damaging; she merely claimed that she can't be held liable for anything she writes because she's a journalist.
Actually, she claimed that she can't be held liable because the alleged victims were public figures, and that the required standard of proof for defamation charges where the alleged victim is a public figure were not met.
> The appeals court decided that she does indeed qualify as a journalist in this case.
No, it, explicitly did not. It said that the test for libel against public figures articulated by the Supreme Court does not rest on a determination of whether the person accused of the defamation is a journalist or not, it depends on whether the subject of the claim is a public figure and the matter under discussion is one of public interest.
It's not about Cox getting some special journalistic privilege, its about the Ninth Circuit rejecting -- as every other circuit that has heard similar cases has rejected -- the idea that the Supreme Court rule on defamation of public figures is a special journalistic privilege at all.
The whole "journalist" misrepresentation is the institutional media pretending that the courts are simply (and implicitly unacceptably) adjusting the scope of a special privilege that belongs to the institutional media, rather than rejecting, again, the idea that the First Amendment creates special privileges that belong to the institutional media.
Actually, she claimed that she can't be held liable because the alleged victims were public figures, and that the required standard of proof for defamation charges where the alleged victim is a public figure were not met.
> The appeals court decided that she does indeed qualify as a journalist in this case.
No, it, explicitly did not. It said that the test for libel against public figures articulated by the Supreme Court does not rest on a determination of whether the person accused of the defamation is a journalist or not, it depends on whether the subject of the claim is a public figure and the matter under discussion is one of public interest.
It's not about Cox getting some special journalistic privilege, its about the Ninth Circuit rejecting -- as every other circuit that has heard similar cases has rejected -- the idea that the Supreme Court rule on defamation of public figures is a special journalistic privilege at all.
The whole "journalist" misrepresentation is the institutional media pretending that the courts are simply (and implicitly unacceptably) adjusting the scope of a special privilege that belongs to the institutional media, rather than rejecting, again, the idea that the First Amendment creates special privileges that belong to the institutional media.