A judge in the Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox case found that Cox was not a journalist and "therefore not entitled to the protections that media defendants enjoy in libel cases" (First amendment.org). Journalists say bloggers aren't journalists; even though that is true (and it is most likely relative to particular states), don't we have/deserve First Amendment rights?
First amendment rights don't apply to libel in the first place.
I have always thought that the right of free speech applied to everybody, individuals included. If that right is taken from us we need to assault washington en masse and demand our rights be restored. ASAP!!!
It does apply to everybody. That's why I was confused. Even though Cox was libelous, you still have to wonder about the judge's ruling in the case.
No, Dont wonder.
COvergae of the cox case was poor.
here: see the real Cox, her name is fitting
the legal issues are covered in a little more depth, beware, the blogger is a bit salty
The constitution, the Bill of rights were written, addressed to the American people. Whatever bill or amendment concerns all the Americans, now to discriminate one versus the another is "unamerican", unconstitutional.
Moral principles, like the First Amendment, need to apply to all citizens otherwise it is essentially meaningless.
People on the net should be not accorded any particular rights...as soon as someone shows me where the border crossing over to totalitarianism exists in cyberspace. Silence or censor me, and I will find a way to speak and be heard. Reminds me of a dream I had when I was young...damned if it hasn't come true. The sad thing is, is the more we speak the more we will be silenced. Check out the One World Government forum. I've seen this coming for a very long time.
Cox was a digital blackmailer, not a journalist.
She wrote false and unproven things about an individual, then heavily promoted those easy terms and offered to provide "reputation management" to her victim.
The media just did a crap job at covering that story
Otherwise, yes a blogger should have first amendment rights. Libel is not protected by the First Amendment as MB stated
In my opinion and based on investigative journalism performed by the Salty Droid, including personal communication allegedly posted by Cox
Libel is not protected, obviously, because you can't protect someone if it what they write or say is not true. If people's voices are totally unfettered, they will talk or write themselves into hot water.
"I mean, in some cases with libel laws, you know, they can write things about people who have no course of action, because they can't afford to take legal action against them."
by Holle Abee 8 years ago
The SCOTUS just decided not to ban the making and selling of dog fighting videos!I don't understand this at all. Dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states! It's illegal to sell hunting videos and hunting magazines in Washington, DC, but dog fighting videos are okay. What were they thinking?The vote...
by Laurel Rogers 7 years ago
Thank God for civil rights!NPR BREAKING NEWS:Reports: California's Ban On Same-Sex Marriages Ruled UnconstitutionalA federal judge in San Francisco has overturned Proposition 8 in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court. Two gay couples sued, claiming the...
by My Esoteric 2 weeks ago
Clearly, Donald Trump will nominate the most extreme conservative he can find to replace Kennedy and Sen Mitch McConnell will do everything he can to get him appointed.At stake, of course, is Kennedy's own legacy. I suspect he is quite aware that the important decisions he sided with the...
by Marlene Bertrand 16 months ago
Do American citizens give up their civil rights when they join the military?My husband told me that when he joined the military, they told him he was the property of the United States. That got me to wondering if that meant he lost his civil rights while he was serving in the military.
by ahorseback 7 months ago
Get over it , one's as good as the next in this foundational civil right , In truth and statistical form , the first amendment has allowed more death and destruction than the second ?
by Mike Russo 2 years ago
Let's face facts people. The 2nd amendment was written for another time and another place. It has no place in today's world. It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings. The gun enthusiast who think they are going to protect themselves from government tyranny are...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|