I SAY WE JUST ROUND UP ALL THE BLOGGERS AND SEND THEM ALL TO JAIL. THAT WOULD SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, WOULDN'T IT?

I worked for one a twice-weekly newspaper in the area. The pay was lousy, so was the content much of the time, but I enjoyed thumbing through all the police reports for some of the smaller cities (not Portland)… something the ordinary citizens (and bloggers) are not allowed to do. The dispatcher would just hand over a huge binder full of juicy stuff, and I'd write down the things that made me chuckle and/or wince the most. And what's the point of being allowed into executive sessions and then expected not to report on what you hear? That was always uncomfortable.

The Oregon case and the the Occupy Oakland issue are two completely different animals. I don't know anything about the Oakland issue or why she was arrested (probably trespass - refusal to obey an officer whatever).

I read some of the articles and various court rulings from the Oregon case. The Oregon case is a civil case for defamation. The "blogger" has something like 20 or 30 domain websites with varying names all targeting the one individual who sued her for defamation - he was a bankruptcy trustee appointed by the bankruptcy court to liquidate a real estate Ponzi scheme headquartered in Bend so that creditors could receive some sort of distribution. The blogger made all sorts of accusations (trustee bribing the media, the court, that he was convicted of tax fraud and that he even hired someone to kill her and in some great Glenn Beck-ness - she was just putting the question out there). From what I read, if you google the trustee's name, you pretty much only come up with her websites for the first few pages. In all of her postings, there was something like one comment made.

The trustee alleged that she made a plethora of defamatory statements. Before the trial even began, the Court ruled for the Blogger that most were merely her opinion - and therefore not actionable (you can't sue someone for stating their opinion). The ruling that has everyone in a tizzy is misunderstood.

The excerpt relates to whether the blogger could be compelled to reveal her source under Oregon's Shield law. The part of the shield law at issue prevents a journalist from being compelled by the courts to reveal their sources. The court ruled she didn't meet the definition in the statute (which could easily be changed to include blogs) for that purpose. Moreover, the Court went on to point out that even if the Shield law applied, it has an exception when the action is a civil action for defamation against the journalist like this (and by my read, the exception would apply equally to an action against an Oregonian reporter, Ch. 12, reporter, CNN reporter being sued for defamation).

Also at issue was the burden of proof that the plainitff had to establish and the type of damages he could recover. Where someone suing for defamation is not a "public figure," public figures, but the person being sued was "media," the plaintiff would have to prove that defendant was negligent in publishing the challenged article rather than just wrong.

Curiously, the single source for the blogger's claims about the trustee in this case came from the daughter of one of the founders of the Ponzi scheme who (the father) was indicted on conspiracy charges and misuse of millions of dollars of investors/customers money) this summer. http://www.ethicscomplaint.com/2010/03/ste… (this is also the blogger's website).

As far as I can tell, this case was about defamation and the "journalist" just making shit up. If it wasn't, I would be much more concerned.

Before we go after those bloggers, it's those blog commenters we need to target!

Thanks for the comments, folks. Seemed a lot more valuable than the article itself, this time.

The lady in question, Cox, is a loon. I wouldn't recommend taking her side on anything.