Citizen journalists' rights of free speech

Rights of free speech for citizen journalists:

Analysis of Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox

The Internet has been regarded as breaking down the distinctions between audiences and information producers. With various platforms, like social media and blogs, people are able to publish information or news to the public. “Citizen journalist” was generated in the blog era, so that it is not a new term currently when considering the newer things that have been generated with the development of Internet. Citizens are now unconsciously or intentionally play the role as journalists when they publish contents through the Internet. Therefore, it is important to understand the rights of citizen journalists, who are not affiliated to professional media institutions.

Justice White wrote in Branzburg v. Hayes case that “Freedom of the press is a ‘fundamental personal right’ which ‘is not confined to newspapers and periodicals.” In this sense, journalists have the freedom to speech to the public no matter what institutions they are work for. In other words, journalists’ rights determine the levels of freedom of the press, because Journalists are the constituents of the media. Journalists have some specific rights regarding freedom of speech, like the right to protect sources. But as for citizen journalists in the digital world, their rights for speaking and publishing news are still under discussion.

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox is an in-progress case includes the discussion about whether bloggers should have the same right as professional journalists. Cox posted several blogs to accuse group founders’ corruption and fraudulent conduction. But Obsidian and other cofounders claimed that Cox’s words defame them and resulted in economic loss for their company. Cox lost this case in 2011 because the United States District Court for the District of Oregon thought Cox was not a journalist, so that her speech was not protected by Oregon media shield law. In January 2014, Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox case was partly reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court, which remanded a new trial. Justices in the Ninth Circuit Court applied New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: officials must prove “actual malice” when they think journalists’ defamatory reports hurt them. Actual malice means journalists’ defamatory statements contain “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” So, here is the question, whether Cox should be regarded as a journalist and require Obsidian to prove her negligence for her blog posts? The Supreme Court accurately clarified in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that “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.” Therefore, it is safe to say that the Internet grants its users the rights of free speech as journalists.

The importance of Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox case is not only located at protecting bloggers’ speech but also undermining authorities’ possible control of information. Specifically, government might differentiate traditional journalists and amateur journalists “without mainstream affiliation,” aiming at controlling the message of specific events to be produced and delivered as they want (Ingram, 2011). For instance, Chinese government licensing journalists working in traditional media is the same purpose as control information. Just this week, journalists from news websites were licensed in China. This is a big thing in Chinese media because only journalists working at traditional media were licensed in the past. However, I do not sure the key purpose of this new policy is to empower journalists of news websites, or to exert more control to information on news websites.