Defend the Free Speech Rights of all Activist Bloggers, Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Alternative Medicine and Whistleblowers in every corner of the WORLD.

Illegal assessing ? You can't share diet advice? Hmmm.. Big Pharma LOST this one. You CAN Give Advice and yes those who help people get well WITHOUT Big Pharma have a First Amendment RIGHT.

This Case was and is a VERY Big Deal. 

YES there is a Food, a Plant, an HERB, an Exercise that has cured someone somewhere of pretty much every disease. They have a Free Speech right to share their experience. Big Pharma and the Controllers of the Establishment FDA Do NOT want you to know about those who have CURED themselves without those Evil prescription drugs and rogue doctors that do not have any respect for the KNOWN Cures that really do Grow on Mother Earth.

Those Blogging about KNOWN Cures, about Alternative Medicine that WORKS and Herbal Remedies as well as those blogging about corruption simply had NO FIRST AMENDMENT Rights, they had to Fight for it. Among those Fighting such battles, one of my favorite case was the Caveman Blogger Case.

Sharing ideas and Advice is Protected FREE SPEECH.

You have a Free Speech right to talk about Food, about things that cured you, or worked for you. And the Big Pharma controlled government superpowers of the Corporation of the United States DO NOT have a legal, moral, constitutional right to SUPPRESS that information, though they have been able to, through controlled media and elite press since the beginning of time.

Caveman Blogger Fights for Free Speech and Internet Freedom



More on the Caveman Blogger Case which is a HUGE WIN for all those who KNOW for SURE that FOOD Cures, Right Eating CURES, Plants ARE Medicine, and that the Great Spirit really did NOT get it wrong and Big Pharma GREED get it right.

“Caveman” blogger wins right to blog advice about food and fitness without a state license
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/20/caveman-blogger-wins-right-to-blog-advice-about-food-and-fitness-without-a-state-license/

Free Speech VICTORY Case for Bloggers Reporting on WHAT Really Works to CURE Ailments
http://ij.org/press-release/north-carolina-free-speech-release-2-18-2015/
http://ij.org/case/paleospeech-2/

https://storify.com/DiabetesMine/caveman-paleo-diet-blogger-loses-1st-round-in-cour

https://www.carolinajournal.com/news-article/n-c-caveman-blogger-wins-a-round-in-federal-court/

http://www.michaelhcohen.com/2013/07/caveman-blogger-has-procedural-win-on-appeal-of-first-amendment-case-on-unlawful-nutrition-dietetics-charge/

https://chrisinmaryville.net/caveman-blogger-wins-first-amendment-case.html

Defend the Free Speech Rights of all Activist Bloggers, Anti-Corruption Bloggers and Whistleblowers in every corner of the WORLD.  They are the LIGHT. They are the Defenders of the Victims of Corruption and they are Changing the Entire WORLD for the BETTER. Stand up for those Bloggers. Start a Blog, EXPOSE Corruption, Report on the News to YOU. Post Videos and Documented Proof.  You are ALL Media.

Defending the First Amendment in Free Speech for ALL.

Check Out the Crystal Cox Free Speech Case

http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/

Defend the Free Speech Rights of all Activist Bloggers, Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Alternative Medicine Bloggers and Whistleblowers in every corner of the WORLD.  They are the LIGHT. They are the Defenders of the Victims of Corruption and they are Changing the Entire WORLD for the BETTER. Stand up for those Bloggers. Start a Blog, EXPOSE Corruption, Report on the News to YOU. Post Videos and Documented Proof.  You are ALL Media. 

You are the Media. REPORT THE NEWS TO YOU. Real News is News by the People for the People. YOU ARE MEDIA.

Corruption is Being EXPOSED. The Light is SHINING bright in dark rooms of Corruption that have been there since the beginning of time. ~  Keep it up Folks. YOU are the MEDIA. You are the ones in the know.

Start a Blog, Use Google Docs, Use Free PR sites, use iReport, upload videos of you talking / reporting, post court documents, post sworn statements, post proof and be the MEDIA.

YOU are MEDIA.

REPORT on what you know, what you are passionate about, post documented facts, case law, videos, photos, and lot's of real proof. YOU are the REAL NEWS Folks.

You are the News by the People for the People. 

If you are in insider, a whistleblower, a witness to a criminal or corrupt activity, a witness to an accident or incident, have information special to your company or industry, know about specific judges, cops, politicians or attorneys, REPORT THE NEWS and post documents of proof, post photos, post video so that people can actually read the REAL NEWS. 

Report on Lobbyists, State Representatives, Mayors, Senators, Attorney Generals, Governors, Attorneys, Judges, Police, Sheriffs, Detectives, and any official, YOU are the NEWS. If you don't report what you see, find out or know then the REAL News does not get reported.

Not only do you have case precedent of a LEGAL Constitutional Right to Report the News that is EQUAL to any Institutional Press Journalist or Big Media Reporter but you also have case precedent to BREAK the NEWS. Another words you have free speech rights, as a matter of LAW, by case precedent to break a story, be the first person talking about the story. THIS is a VERY Big Deal. So use this case precedent to Break the News, Report the News, YOU are MEDIA.

Yes First case of it's Kind. Landmark case. NO Crystal Cox had NO history of seeking payoff for retractions. NOT one. Not Ever.

"a Appeals court overturns defamation award against blogger A panel of 9th Circuit judges rules that bloggers have the same 1st Amendment protections as traditional news media.
January 17, 2014
By Maura Dolan

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court unanimously overturned a defamation award against a blogger Friday, ruling that 1st Amendment protections for traditional news media extend to individuals posting on the Web.

"The protections of the 1st Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities," Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote for a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The panel said its holding was the first of its kind within the 9th Circuit, though other circuit courts have held that individuals have the same free speech rights as the news media.

"This case is the first one from a federal court of appeals that specifically protects the rights of bloggers," said UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh, who represented blogger Crystal Cox on appeal."

Source
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/17/local/la-me-blogger-1st-amendment-20140118

JOURNALISM AND SHIELD LAWS: WHEN THE “WHO” CEASES TO MATTER

"Shield Laws: “legal rules which protect journalists against the government requiring them to reveal confidential sources or other information.” (SPJ, http://www.spj.org/shieldlaw-faq.asp)

The question on who should be considered a journalist with regards to shield laws is an important one, but one that derives from the presupposition that the comprehension of the meaning of “journalist” is necessary to understand the subjects and scope of shield norms. Though these laws were originally intended and designed to protect journalists, their configuration and construction raises an important question: Why only “journalists”? If shield laws provide special protection under the idea that by doing so they protect the free flow of information, how free is that flow if only some are allowed to affect it under protection? It would seem that the free flow of information would demand, due to its own nature, that protection is not a selective offer of the Law, but a democratized right, that distinguishes not on who (subjective criterion) has access to it but on why (objective criterion).

A different -yet related- question, takes us to similar answers. If we would approach the question “who is a journalist”, with the intention of defining who is protected by shield laws, the search for an answer would probably take us to an ever-broadening concept.

Immersed in this digital age, in the days of micro-blogging, online magazines, and social media, we can hardly tell the difference between a “journalist” and a person who blogs about certain issues and has investigated and revealed important information… whether that person should (or should not) be shielded by the law with regards to source disclosure.

Judicial decisions have also been shifting away from the traditional idea of the shield law subjects. Hence, though some jurisdictions (i.e. the District of Oregon) have defined shield law beneficiaries with a traditional outlook limiting it to professionals with a degree in journalism or people associated to a news outlet (United States District Court for the District of Oregon in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC  v. Cox), increasingly, others have presented a less orthodox approach, a more inclusive notion that also encompasses bloggers without these professional backgrounds.

As the New Hampshire Supreme Court declared, “freedom of the press is a fundamental personal right which is not confined to newspapers and periodicals.” (The Mortgage Specialist, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc.)

Therefore, the need to define who is or is not a journalist, with relation to shield laws, has been diminishing. Today, the question is more often “Why do shield laws beneficiaries have to fit a category (i.e.: journalists), that by doing what categories do, excludes?” and “Who can really tell who is definitively and fixedly not a journalist (or a potential journalist) in this digital age? ”

Source
http://thesocialsciencepost.com/en/2016/01/journalism-and-shield-laws-when-the-who-ceases-to-matter/

The Crystal Cox Case is a Game Changer. NOW you are MEDIA as a Matter of Law and Higher Court Precedence.

"What the Crystal Cox case means for digital media

The case, which threatened to turn a great deal of business journalism into a crime, made its way to the California Court of Appeals. In 2006, the court ruled against Apple and for the websites. Journalism was also a winner.


That affair came to mind this week when a federal judge in Oregon, ruling in a libel case, came to a different conclusion. In deciding that blogger Crystal Cox's blistering attack on an investment firm and its co-founder was defamatory, he said she was not a journalist and therefore could not keep her source's identity secret under that state's shield law. Even if she had met that standard, he wrote, she'd still have had to divulge the identity of her source for the post.

In reaching that conclusion, the judge relied on wording in the law that makes no mention of digital media. And, following a laundry list of what he considered acceptable journalistic credentials and practices, he concluded she met none of his criteria and therefore was not part of the news media."

Source  and Full Article
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/dec/08/crystal-cox-case-digital-media

BLOGS are MEDIA. And Bloggers NOW have Equal Rights as a Matter of Law because of the Crystal Cox Case Ninth Circuit Win.

You are now Media as of a Matter of Law Due to the Crystal Cox Case. So, start a blog, tell your story, report the news in your town, area of expertise or news you know.

"Bloggers = Media for First Amendment Libel Law Purposes

So holds today’s Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2014) (in which I represented the defendant). To be precise, the Ninth Circuit concludes that all who speak to the public, whether or not they are members of the institutional press, are equally protected by the First Amendment. To quote the court,

"The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media … the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.”Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue — not the identity of the speaker — provide the First Amendment touchstones."

I think that’s right, not just as a matter of First Amendment principle but also as a matter of history and precedent (as I documented at length in Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or for the Press as a Technology? From the Framing to Today, 160 U. Pa. L. Rev. 459 (2012)). The specific legal issue that the Ninth Circuit was confronting in this passage, by the way, is whether all who speak to the public are equally protected by the Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. rules, which are that

1. libel plaintiffs suing over statements on matters of public concern must prove that the defendant was negligent about the falsity of the statement, and
2. libel plaintiffs suing over statements on matters of public concern and seeking presumed or punitive damages (as opposed to identifiable compensatory damages) must prove that the defendant knew that the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the possibility that it was false.

But the court’s reasoning reaches the First Amendment more broadly, and correctly so (again, see the Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or for the Press as a Technology? article, which sets out the historical evidence). Note, though, that the court’s reasoning is limited to First Amendment protections; it doesn’t discuss state or federal statutes that provide extra protection to the “media” or to other subsets of speakers."

Source
http://volokh.com/2014/01/17/bloggers-media-first-amendment-libel-law-purposes/

Obsidian v. Cox ~ Ninth Circuit Blogger First Amendment Case