Sunday, December 29, 2013

Pastor John Collins and the Bringing Back God Church, in Marietta Pennsylvania announces Lead Pastor, Pastor Dave Harris.

The Bringing Back God Church in Marietta Pennsylvania is part of many churches Pastor John Collins is breathing new life into. Pastor John Collins is bringing people back to God, restoring Faith, and saving churches.

Bringing Back God Church in Marietta Pennsylvania Announces New Lead Pastor, Pastor Dave Harris and Wife Porscha Leigh Harris.

Bringing Back God into your Life and Bringing Back Faith.

The Bringing Back God Church in Marietta is part of the many churches Pastor John Collins is breathing new life into. Pastor John Collins is bringing people back to God, restoring Faith, and saving churches that are destined to be turned into apartment buildings or something other use due to shutting down. Pastor John Collins believes that churches were built on sacred ground, holy ground intended to be spiritual places and they should stay that way.

The Bringing Back God Church seems to be creating a non-denominational Christian Faith Movement that is changing the lives all all they touch. Pastor John Collins and the Bringing Back God Church is dedicated to unconditionally giving, helping and making people's lives better in any way they can.

The Bringing Back God Church in Marietta announces a new lead Pastor named Pastor Dave Harris.  Pastor Dave Harris has been selected by Pastor John Collins to spread the good word at the Bringing Back God Church in Marietta PA.

What Pastor Dave Harris of the Bringing Back God Church has to say:

"My name  is Pastor David Harris; I was born and raised in Delaware County, Pa. I have always been a believer in Jesus Christ; however I never had the Biblical knowledge to live the life God wanted me to live. I was living a life of sin. I was partying and pulling all nighters, living the way I wanted to live. I was the lead singer of several heavy metal bands and I did get into some trouble with the law.

During this time in my life alcohol and drugs was my God.  All that would change six years ago when God spoke to me. I clearly heard the words:  “That life your living is not my purpose for you. I want you to come back to Me and serve Me.” Immediately I spoke to a Pastor about the call placed on my life and he got me into a Bible College in Lakeland Florida, called Southeastern University were I studied Pastoral Ministry. Once I finished school, I received my credentials through the National Association of Christian Ministers.

Since then God has allowed me to lead a Celebrate Recovery, I have worked with children, youth and adults at all levels. I also currently lead National Day of Prayer in Delaware County. I  started my own ministry in Delco by the grace of God were I would put in place Bible studies and just help others in need, pray for others, and just carry out Jesus’ command to Love your neighbor as yourself. I also have been able to serve God in Mexico and Ecuador and also assisted in a church plant in Dearborn, Michigan. I am newly married this year to my lovely, gorgeous God loving wife Porscha Leigh Harris.  We continue to build a personal relationship with Jesus Christ daily.

We both take Jesus’ last words to His disciples very seriously and that is To Go Make Disciples! I’m called to speak the good news of the cross to the lost, the hurting, the broken, and the poor. We look forward to our New Position as Lead Pastors of BBG Church in Marietta Pa. We both vow to love the people of Marietta as God loves them.
God Bless

Pastor David Harris"

Pastor Dave Harris of the Bringing Back God Church Also Says:

"I am a part of the fellowship of the unashamed.

The die has been cast, I’ve stepped over the line; the decision has been made;

I am a disciple of Jesus Christ.

I will not look back, let up, slow down, back away or be still.

My past is redeemed; my present makes sense; my future is secure.

I no longer need pre-eminence, prosperity, position, promotions, plaudits or popularity.

I don’t have to be right, first, tops, recognized, praised, regarded or rewarded .

I now live by faith, love by patience, live by prayer, and labor by power .

My pace is set; my gait is fast; my goal is the heaven. My road is narrow;

My way is rough; my companions few; my Guide reliable; my mission clear!

I cannot be bought, compromised, deterred, lured away, turned back, deluded or delayed.

I will not flinch in the face of sacrifice, hesitate in the presence of adversity;

I will not negotiate at the table of the enemy, ponder at the pool of popularity, nor meander in the maze of mediocrity.

I will not give up, back up, let up, or shut up until I have prayed up, preached up, stored up, and stayed up the cause of Jesus Christ!

I am a disciple of Jesus Christ.

I must go until He returns; give until I drop;

preach until all know; and work until He comes.

And when He comes to get His own, He will have no trouble recognizing me;

My colors are flying high, and they are clear for all to see. "

To watch a Pastor Dave Harris of the Bringing Back God Church Sermon

10 a.m on Sunday
AND
7p.m. on Wednesday


133 W Market Street

Marietta, PA

For more more about the Bringing Back God ChurchPastor John Collins

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Pastor John Collins, Bringing Back God Church, Bristol Tennessee Christian Church and Bringing Back God Church Marietta Pennsylvania.

Pastor John CollinsBringing Back God Church, Bristol Tennessee Christian Church 

Pastor John Collins of the Bringing Back God Church is tireless in helping those in need.

Pastor John Collins has been there for me for 4 years now, without fail, as a spiritual advisor, friend and mentor. Pastor John Collins spends his days tirelessly helping people to have the basics in life, such as heat, food, and ways out of bad situations such as drug addictions.

The Bringing Back God Church in Marietta Pennsylvania and Bristol Tennessee is a non-denomination, Christian Church that is open 7 days a week .

Pastor John Collins is tireless support for those who reach for him in need.


Pastor John Collins and the Bringing Back God Church in Marietta Pennsylvania and the Bringing Back God Church in Bristol Tennessee is all about the second greatest commandment, "Love thy neighbor".

Come as you are! 

ALL are welcome at the The Bringing Back God Church in Marietta Pennsylvania and the Bringing Back God Church in Bristol Tennessee.

"Love thy Neighbor" "Help thy Neighbor"
is the motto of  Pastor John CollinsBringing Back God Church

The Mission of Pastor John CollinsBringing Back God Church Marietta Christian Church "Bringing Back God Church" and Pastor John CollinsBringing Back God Church in Bristol Tennessee.

It is the goal of the Bringing Back God Church and Pastor John Collinsto save souls and glorify God and Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors without prejudice while teaching from the Holy Bible.

Bringing Back God Church, Christian Church Marietta Pennsylvania, Pastor John Collins

Marietta, Pennsylvania 
Bristol, Tennessee

Phone Marietta Pennsylvania Christian Church
(717) 426-4081

Email Pastor John Collins,  Bringing Back God Church
BringingBackGod@yahoo.com

Website Marietta Pennsylvania Christian Church www.BringingBackGod.com

Pastor John CollinsBringing Back God Church Message;

Hello and welcome.  My name is Pastor John Collins.  I would like to take a moment and tell you a little about myself.  I was not always a Christian.

I had lived a life of sin and had no intention of becoming a preacher.  I did not find God, He found me.

I was a man who loved money and all that it could buy.  I enjoyed living my life for me.  I am now a man who lives his life for God and my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

I am committed to living the word as well as preaching the word.  I believe in helping your neighbor.

I believe in doing what is right and helping another in need whenever you can.  I believe in teaching the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.  “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.”  Matthew 5:17 The New Testament does not replace the Old, it fulfills it.

We are living in a time when being a Christian is not a good thing.

To tell someone that you are a Christian is to bring on skepticism and disdain.  There are many greedy and self serving preachers that are responsible for that.

There are many preachers that teach people wrong and also teach them to want what they themselves want, which is money.

I am not here to get rich.  I am here to help you build your faith, get salvation and go to heaven.
We can do that together by loving one another and helping our neighbors.  I know that corrupt preachers need to be stopped and we need to work to make the Christian faith one of respect again.

I am here to speak the truth and teach the word of God as it was meant to be taught.  I am here to walk the walk and talk the talk.  I serve God and my Lord Jesus Christ.  I am thankful that they have come into my life and given me the truth.

They have given me a passion for righteousness.  They have saved me and I want the same for you.  I hope that you enjoy my sermons and if you ever need to speak with me, do not hesitate to contact me and leave me your number.

May God bless you and yours.
Pastor John Collins
Source  of Bringing Back God, Pastor John Collins Message
http://BringingBackGod.com/sample-page/

Pastor John Collins  Bringing Back God Church Sermons
http://bringingbackgod.com/sermons-2/

Bringing Back God ChurchPastor John CollinsWebsite
www.BringingBackGod.com

Bringing Back God Church Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/bbg40


Bringing Back God Church Message of Faith

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17

We at Bringing Back God Church are centered in the word of God.

We believe in the Old Testament and the New Testament.

We at Bringing Back God Church know that Jesus said,”Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” Matthew 5:17 We know that Jesus was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit and that He is the Son of God. “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear you Him.” Matthew 17:5

We know that Jesus was sinless, was crucified, shed His blood and died on the cross as a reparation for our sins.

We know that Jesus was resurrected the third day and rose to be seated at the right hand of God. “The Lord said to My Lord, Sit You at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” Psalm 110:1 We know that the only unforgivable sin is to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost has never forgiveness; but is in danger of eternal damnation:” Mark 3:29

We at Bringing Back God Church know that,”The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” Proverbs 9:10 We know that we are to love each other. “A new commandment I give to you, That you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” John 13:34

Our beliefs are simple and based in truth. There is but One Almighty God and He sent His Son, Jesus, to die for our sins. There is God’s Holy Spirit which is witness to all and assists us in our lives and our prayers.

We know that baptism is essential to being a Christian and gaining entry into Heaven. Just as our Lord was baptized, all of His followers need to follow His example. We know that the bible is written to be a source of instruction for our lives. We do not just know the scriptures, we live them. We follow the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ and hope to help others to do the same.

We at Bringing Back God Church know that to get to the Father you must go through the Son. We know that Jesus and God are of the same spirit yet they are separate entities. Many people choose to interpret the bible in different ways. We choose to read it and know it to be the truth as it was written. It is clear and precise. It tells us to love our neighbor and to love God above all.

We worship Him and His Son Jesus Christ in spirit and in truth.

We know that Hell is real. We know that Heaven is real. We know that each one of us chooses our path daily. God gave each of us free will to do so. We choose to obey God’s law and to help others choose to do the same.

Source of Message of Faith, Bringing Back God Church Pennsylvania
http://bringingbackgod.com/msg-of-faith/

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Crystal Cox Case. Retraction Laws SHOULD Apply to ALL blogger, citizen journalists and whistle blowers alike.

An Oregon Federal Judge Claims that Retraction Laws DO NOT Apply to Blogs. Which most ALL Traditional Media Has, whistle blowers use, citizen journalists use. Why in the world would would Retraction Laws NOT Apply To Bloggers?

Oregon Federal Judge, Judge Marco Hernandez Ruled that Oregon Retraction Laws do Not Apply to Blogs. Blogs are a medium of communication, no doubt about it. Blogs SHOULD have protection of Retraction Laws.

Judge Marco Hernandez knew full well that Oregon Retraction Laws do Apply to blogs and this Case Should have Been DISMISSED based on that ONE Reason alone. Yet, Judge Marco Hernandez ruled that blogs are not covered under retraction laws. This ruling affects all online "media" and is not based in law.


An Oregon Legal Article Regarding Retraction Laws and the Crystal Cox Case.

"Oregon’s retraction statutes provide protection from defamation lawsuits if the publisher retracts the allegedly defamatory statement according to the prescribed guidelines. The publisher has two weeks after receiving a demand for retraction to investigate the demand and determine whether to publish a correction or retraction.

The retraction must appear in the first issue published, or first broadcast made, after the expiration of the two-week deadline.

The content of the retraction should substantially state that the defamatory statements previously made are not factually supported, and that the publisher regrets their original publication. Finally, the correction or retraction must be published in substantially as conspicuous manner as was the defamatory statement.

Oregon courts have held that the retraction statute does not violate the Oregon constitution and that it applies only to publishers and broadcasters, and not to individual defendants whose statements happened to be published or broadcast."

Source of Quotes Above and Full Article Regarding Blogs and Oregon Retraction Laws. The article is Regarding Defamation Issues for BLOGS. It is From 2009
http://oregonintellectualproperty.com/2009/10/25/defamation-issues-for-blogs/

Judge Marco Hernandez Ruling Regarding Blogs 

and Retraction Laws


Oregon Retraction Law Below


§ 31.210¹
When general damages allowed

(1)In an action for damages on account of a defamatory statement published or broadcast in a newspaper, magazine, other printed periodical, or by radio, television or motion pictures, the plaintiff shall not recover general damages unless:
(a)A correction or retraction is demanded but not published as provided in ORS 31.215 (Publication of correction or retraction upon demand)or
(b)The plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant actually intended to defame the plaintiff.
(2)Where the plaintiff is entitled to recover general damages, the publication of a correction or retraction may be considered in mitigation of damages. [Formerly 30.160]


Source
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/31.210

More on Oregon Retraction Laws / Statutes
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/031.html

Oregon Retraction Laws NOT Applied to blogs regarding the Crystal Cox Case, Obsidian Vs. Cox paved the Way for all blogs to not have retraction laws apply and this is simply not based in law and affects all online media, bloggers, citizen journalists, whistle blowers and even traditional journalists.

Retraction Laws SHOULD Apply to Blogs, to online media, as a matter of law.

Oregon State Bar Article Regarding Oregon Retraction Laws and Obsidian Vs. Cox
"• Who is covered by Oregon’s right-of-retraction statute, ORS 31.200-225?

ORS 31.220-225, “Tort Actions, Rules Governing Particular Claims for Relief,” precludes a
plaintiff from obtaining 
general damages for defamation unless the plaintiff has demanded a correction or retraction and the defendant has failed to correct or retract the statement.

In this case, Cox claimed that because the plaintiffs did not seek a correction or retraction, they could not obtain general damages.  Hernandez, however, ruled that “These statutes apply …only to damages on account of a defamatory statement published or broadcast in a newspaper, magazine, other printed periodical, or by radio, television or motion picture. ORS 31.205; 31.210. The Oregon Legislature has not expanded the list of publications or broadcasts to include Internet blogs.”

To Bosworth, the applicability of the retraction statute is one of “two areas of interest in this case,” the other being the First Amendment issue advanced by Volokh and Souede.

“Does the retraction statute apply to this blogger?” he asks rhetorically.

If it applies, says Bosworth, Cox can’t be sued unless the
“plaintiffs have jumped through a number of hoops.”

“The plaintiffs did none of those things here, and that would preclude them from any lawsuit 
for general damages if the retraction statute applied,” Bosworth says.

“Speaking for myself, he continues, “I would have concern about having it apply to everyone. If it’s diluted, then the traditional media might lose its protection. The biggest issue [in the case] is the court’s probable over-breadth re the Internet not being protected by the retraction statute. 

There’s concern on the part of people who are not quite bloggers but are traditional media 
making statements on their websites. I think they’re alarmed. It has not been an issue, in state
trial courts, whether bloggers are protected by the state retraction statute

What the judge said isn’t binding on any other judge, even in the federal system; it just shows the confusion about these things.”

In its amicus curiae brief, the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued not only that the Oregon “…retraction statute should be interpreted to extend to Internet periodicals such as Defendant’s blogs,” but that Hernandez was wrong in ruling, in part, that Cox could not invoke the state’s so-called Media Shield Law, ORS 44.510-540, because it doesn’t cover anyone who is a defendant in a civil defamation suit.

“…The source of Cox’ statements,” the foundation pointed out, “was not at issue.”

“Taken together with the court’s ruling regarding the appropriate intent requirement and the jury’s excessive verdict,” the brief said strongly, “these findings paint an increasingly and unnecessarily hostile landscape for online speech, one that may discourage such speakers or lead them to engage in the type of ‘intolerable self-censorship’ decried by the Supreme Court…”

“While the scope of the First Amendment Protections afforded to Internet journalists is a salient 
and important question,” the brief concluded, “here the primary question was not whether ‘a self-proclaimed investigative blogger’ is considered ‘media’ for the purposes of applying a 
negligence standard in a defamation claim but whether all speakers enjoy the same affirmative First Amendment protections regardless of media status.”

Source and Full Article of Legal Issues and Concerns of Obsidian V. Cox, Moving Forward


"Judge Hernandez Claims the Oregon Retraction Laws do not apply to this Montana 
Blogger, who was Publishing from Boulder Colorado at the time of the post I was on 
Trial For. Here is what Judge Hernandez Said Regarding the Oregon Retraction Statute.

"Oregon Revised Statutes §§ (O.R.S.) 31-200 - 31.225 preclude a plaintiff from obtaining general damages on account of a defamatory statement being published in certain forms unless a correction or retraction is demanded, but not published as provided in O.R.S. 31.215.

Defendant 
contends that because plaintiffs did not seek a correction or retraction, they may not obtained general damages.

These statutes apply, however, only to actions for damages on account of a defamatory
statement published or broadcast in a newspaper, magazine, other printed periodical, or by radio, television, or motion picture. O.R.S. 31.205, 31. 210.

The Oregon Legislature has not expanded 
the list of publications or broadcasts to include Internet blogs."

"Because the statements at issue in this case were posted on an Internet blog, they do not fall under Oregon's retraction statutes."

Source, the Opinion, Decision of Judge Marco Hernandez that Oregon Retraction Statutes do not apply blogs, to the Internet. Even though the Internet is the newspaper in this day and age. And is a periodical and a magazine.

Federal Judge Claims Retraction Laws do Not APPLY to the Internet
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/107229072/Obsidian-V-Cox---Ruling-Hearing

Here is the Oregon Retraction Statute
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/031.html


" I.  Oregon's Retraction Statutes

Oregon Revised Statutes §§ (O.R.S.) 31-200 - 31.225 preclude a plaintiff from obtaining
general damages on account of a defamatory statement being published in certain forms 
unless a correction or retraction is demanded, but not published as provided in 
O.R.S. 31.215.  Defendant contends that because plaintiffs did not seek a correction 
or retraction, they may not obtained general damages.

These statutes apply, however, only to actions for damages on account of a defamatory
statement published or broadcast in a newspaper, magazine, other printed periodical, 
or by radio, television, or motion picture.  O.R.S. 31.205, 31. 210.  

The Oregon Legislature has not expanded the list of publications or broadcasts to include 
Internet blogs.  Because the statements at issue in this case were posted on an Internet 
blog, they do not fall under Oregon's retraction statutes. 

Source and Full Legal Opinion Regarding Retraction Laws and Obsidian Vs. Cox


EFF Regarding Oregon Retraction Laws and Obsidian Vs. Cox

"This is a excerpt from EFF, the Electronic Frontier Foundation attorneys in support of a new trial 
for defendant Crystal L. Cox in Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox. Oregon Retraction Laws should 
have applied to defendant Crystal L. Cox.  Kevin Padrick nor Obsidian Finance Group asked 
for a retractions of that blog post, or a reason why to retract.

"  The First Amendment protects all speakers, not just the press, from strict defamation liability. Moreover, protected-though-critical speech cannot be the basis for a verdict reached by a sympathetic 
jury. Especially when read in light of the Court’s (unnecessary and erroneous) additional rulings 
regarding if and how online speakers can earn an elevated “media” or “press” status, these findings 
paint an unnecessarily risky legal landscape for such speakers in the district, one at odds with the 
First Amendment and Oregon law."

"The allegedly defamatory statements attributed to Cox included ones accusing Padrick of all manner of misconduct such as committing “tax fraud,” of being “corrupt,” of paying off media and politicians
of “illegal activities,” “deceit on the government,” “money laundering,” “defamation,” and “harassment,” even going so far as asking whether “Padrick hire[d] a hitman to kill” her. Compl. at ¶ 8.

Plaintiffs alleged in their Complaint that “Defendant knowingly and intentionally published the false and defamatory statements alleged above with actual knowledge of their falsity or with actual malice or 
reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement.” Compl. at ¶ 10."

"Under the First Amendment, contrary to the Court’s Order of November 30, 2011, a successful 
defamation action requires at least a showing of negligence, regardless of the “media” status 
of the defendant.

As the jury found Cox liable for defamation pursuant to jury instructions that did not include such a limitation, the verdict must be overturned and a new trial granted.

Moreover, the jury’s award – $2.5 million based on a single blog post, undifferentiated from the myriad other allegedly defamatory posts that the Court eventually found to be protected speech under the First Amendment – was excessive and unsupported by sufficient evidence and thus cannot stand.

Combined with the other overreaching rulings regarding Cox’s media status, these errors will leave 
online speakers in the district unnecessarily and unconstitutionally chilled. Defendant’s motion should 
be granted."

"The Court Failed to Instruct the Jury that It Must Find the Defendant at Least Negligent In Order to Find Her Liable for Defamation.

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), the Supreme Court identified a constitutional floor regarding the intent requirement in defamation claims, holding that “so long as they do not impose 
liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual.” Gertz at 347. Noting 
that “erroneous statement of fact” is “inevitable in free debate,” and that “punishment of error 
runs the risk of inducing a cautious and restrictive exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms 
of speech and press,” the Court gave States Case 3:11-cv-00057-HZ Document 108-1 Filed 01/11/12 
Page 6 of 13 Page ID#:2614 broad latitude to achieve their legitimate objectives of protecting private individuals but drew a firm line barring strict liability statutes because of the inevitable chilling effect: 
“Our decisions recognize that a rule of strict liability that compels a publisher or broadcaster 
to guarantee the accuracy of his factual assertions may lead to intolerable self-censorship.” 
Id. at 340.

Fashioned in a pre-Internet context (addressing a defamation claim concerning a traditional magazine publisher), and couched in terms of “media,” “press,” “broadcasters,” and “publishers,” the Gertz Court nonetheless did not limit its ruling to the “media” per se.

Rather, the Court addressed a factual claim before it that involved the (then relatively expensive and limited) ability to “broadcast” a message to a sizable audience, an ability that is now not just 
commonplace but ubiquitous."

"EFF also agrees with the Defendant that the jury’s damages award was unsupported by the evidence, providing a separate basis requiring the Court to grant a new trial.

Trial courts may grant remittitur if a jury award “is so unreasonably high as to ‘exceed any 
rational appraisal,’” is “outrageous, shocking or monstrous,” or “so inordinately large as 
obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate.” Rosa v. Burlington Northern, 277 Or. 683, 687 (Ore. 1977) (citing Oliver v. Burlington Northern, 271 Or. 214 (Ore. 1975)). Such is the case here.

Plaintiffs assert that the harm inflicted by the Defendant was the result of hundreds of disparaging blog posts made across a multitude of time and across dozens of sites: “Every time someone gets on the Internet and uses a search engine such as Google to research Kevin Padrick or Obsidian Finance, what they immediately find is that Padrick and Obsidian are being accused of 
serious criminal and civil misconduct on literally dozens of websites.” Plaintiffs’

Memorandum In Opposition to Sua Sponte Motion for Summary Judgment filed July 22, 2011,
at p.2 (Dkt. 27). See also id. at p.13 (“Defendant Cox has falsely stated to potentially millions of Internet users that Padrick and Obsidian have engaged in criminal and civil misconduct.”).

However, the Court granted Cox’s motion for summary judgment as to all blog posts (and web sites) save one: a single post from December 25, 2010, that appeared on the www.bankruptcycorruption.com 
web site. See Supplemental Opinion &; Order of August 23, 2011, at 24-31 (Dkt. 31).

While recognizing the highly critical and caustic nature of many of the allegedly defamatory statements, the Court ultimately found that all but one of the posts amounted to, at worst, hyperbolic expression that a reasonable fact-finder could not interpret as provably false assertions (and thus protected speech).

No evidence in the record supports a finding that Plaintiffs suffered $2.5 million in damages due 
exclusively to the single blog post of December 25, 2010. Rather, the evidence appears only to indicate that the reputational harm alleged by Plaintiffs was exclusively or primarily the result of protected speech. That search engines such as Google may highlight and prioritize the Defendant’s protected though 
critical statements in a manner the Plaintiffs may (understandably) find to be unfortunate or unfair is of no legal consequence to a defamation award. Indeed, that the jury appears to have shared the Plaintiffs’ aversion to Cox’s writings similarly cannot excuse an award that is contradicted by the evidence.

See, e.g., Siebrand v. Gossnell, 234 F.2d 81, 94 (9th Cir. 1956) (trial court may “grant a new trial when he is of opinion the verdict is against the weight of evidence …”) (citing Southern Pacific Co. v. Guthrie, 186 F.2d 926, 932 (9th Cir. 1951), Bradley Mining Co. v. Boice, 194 F.2d 80, 83 (9th Cir. 1951)). The excessiveness of and lack of an evidentiary for the jury’s award warrants a new trial.

"The Court’s Additional Erroneous Findings Regarding the Defendant’s Media Status Amplifies the 
Impact of the Improper Jury Instruction and Threatens to Further Chill Speech.

Amicus is concerned not only with the improper application of First Amendment standards to the Internet speaker in the immediate case but also with the message that the Court’s rulings will send to the broader Internet community.

Combined with the pre-trial rulings filed by the Court on November 30, 2011, they together threaten to 
chill speech in contravention of the First Amendment.

Therefore, in addition to granting Defendant’s motion for a new trial, amicus strongly urge the Court to reconsider two of its previous First Amendment decisions regarding the Defendant’s “media” status.

First, contrary to the Court’s decision, Oregon’s retraction statute should be 
interpreted to extend to Internet periodicals such as Defendant’s blogs.

O.R.S. § 31.215 prohibits the recovery of general damages absent a demand for a retraction (that is subsequently ignored) for “defamatory statement[s] published or broadcast in a newspaper, magazine, other printed periodical, or by radio, television or motion pictures.”

Passed decades before the advent of the public Internet, this statutory list appears to reflect the legislature’s desire to identify and encompass all manner of publication channels, not a desire to pick 
and choose communications made pursuant to certain technologies per se.

Rather, the legislature’s public policy goal was to encourage the publication of retractions of defamatory statements and to therefore reduce litigation and preserve judicial economy by 
reducing lawsuits.

As the Oregon Supreme Court has noted, the retraction statute is “loosely drafted” and that the “legislature probably intended” that the protections be afforded “to those involved in the process of publishing or broadcasting.”

Wheeler v. Green, 286 Or. 99, 123 (Ore. 1979). That is, “publishers” are afforded the statutory
opportunity for retraction as “[i]t is the ‘publisher’ in that sense who has the power to determine
whether or not a correction or retraction shall be printed or broadcast. Id. As Internet publication is no different in this sense than the broad publication methods identified the statute, it too should be afforded the same opportunities and protections.

Applying the statute to Cox’s Internet posts, as a retraction demand was not issued by the Plaintiffs, the ability to seek general damages should have been precluded.

"Second, the Court’s finding that Cox was not “affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system” and “thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the [shield] law in the first instance” was unnecessary to reach and erroneous as a matter of law.

Order of November 30, 2011, at p.3 (Dkt. 95). O.R.S. § 44.520 states that “[n]o person …
engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by a … judicial officer
or body … to disclose … [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by
the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of
communication to the public.” By gathering information and directing her analysis and commentary to the public  even if it contained factual assertions that were incorrect, and even if some statements were defamatory – Cox was certainly “engaged in [a] medium of communication to the public” and thus afforded the protection. The definition of “medium of communication” was left deliberately broad (and non-exclusive) by the Oregon legislature:

“‘[m]edium of communication’ is broadly defined as including, but not limited to, any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.” O.R.S. § 44.510(2).

There can be no question that Internet publication qualifies for protection under the statute, and that individuals engaged in such publication directed at the public should be afforded the statute’s protections.
The Court ultimately should not have ruled on the question, and thus should have refrained from issuing its controversial dicta regarding whether Cox’s status as an Internet publisher precluded her from the shield law’s protection, because the source of Cox’s statements were not at issue.

In her Objection to Plaintiff’s FRCP 37 Motion to Compel, filed November 14, 2011 (Dkt. 66), for example, Cox disclaims a proper reliance on the shield law, identifying and explaining the source of her statements and noting that that source “has nothing to do with the blog post I am on trial for.” Id. at p.3.1 Accordingly, the question of the scope of the shield law’s protection should have been left for another day and for a situation in which a true controversy exists.

Taken together with the Court’s ruling regarding the appropriate intent requirement and the jury’s excessive verdict, these findings paint an increasingly and unnecessarily hostile landscape for online speech, one that may discourage such speakers or lead them to engage in the type of “intolerable self-censorship” decried by the Supreme Court in Gertz.

Not only may they be subject to strict defamation liability and disproportionate damages awards based on search engine placement, independent online publishers may be denied the opportunity to limit their damages (pursuant to the retraction statute) and compelled to produce their sources even though they fall within the letter and spirit of the shield law.

In addition to granting a new trial, amicus urges the Court to reconsider the broader holdings discussed above in order to ensure that speech is not unduly restrained in this new medium.

V. CONCLUSION

While the scope of the First Amendment protections afforded to Internet journalists is a salient and important question, here the primary question was not whether “a self-proclaimed ‘investigative blogger’ is considered ‘media’ for the purposes of applying a negligence standard in a defamation claim” but whether all speakers enjoy the same affirmative First Amendment protections regardless of media status.

Order of November 30, 2011, at p.9. Amicus supports Defendant’s motion for a new trial because the proper defamation standard was not applied below and because the jury verdict was excessive.

Moreover, amicus believes that the question of Defendant’s “media” status unfortunately and improperly emerged to overshadow the merits of the case to the detriment of both the Defendant and of Internet publishers generally.

Accordingly, amicus respectfully asks the Court to grant Defendant’s motion for a new trial and to reconsider its rulings of November 30, 2011, as to the applicability of Oregon’s retraction statute and shield law."

Source of Post
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/110847626/Obsidian-V-Cox---Retraction-Laws-Shield-Laws-Free-Speech-First-Amendment"

Motion For New Trial Filed on Behalf of Blogger Crystal Cox

EFF Files Support Amicus Brief
EFF Regarding Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox and the Oregon Retraction Laws

Opening Brief Filed in Obsidian Vs. Cox, Crystal Cox First Amendment Case



More Crystal Cox Case Documents, and Crystal Cox Case Overview