Hacker News Reader

Comment by saulrh | Hacker News Reader

It's worth noting that the guy that wrote the corresponding law for the State of Washington explicitly blames obsolete laws for the nonapplicability of the shield law: "Oregon's law was probably written before blogging was accounted for." [1] He goes on to say that she probably would still have been judged against, since withholding the source means she can't prove her claims are factual, but that she still should have gotten that protection.

[1] http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/12/unlike_or...

View on HN

I Did Provide My Source. The Court Threw It Out. http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2011/12/in-obsidian-v-co... I was never asked to retract the post, and under Oregon Retraction Laws denied that law because I am a blog and not TV, or Traditional Broadcasting.

Should talk to the EFF and see if they'll take your case. Representing yourself in court is such a bad idea that even lawyers hire other lawyers to represent them.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2011-... reads as if they asked you to remove the article and apologize and you rejected the proposal.

My understanding was that, in a defamation claim, the complainant must prove the statement is untrue, not that the defendant must prove that her statement is true. Is oregon law different?

It would be unfortunate if proving a negative were necessary to win such a case. IANAL so it indeed may be that the complainant must prove the statement is untrue. I would expect that a complaint such as this one would necessitate the writer proving that the statement is factual, accurate, or some other variation of truth.

Putting the burden of proof solely on the journalist leaves the press open to legal harassment, having to constantly prove in court every statement that a public figure doesn't like. That kind of law probably wouldn't pass a constitutional test, especially in front of a Supreme Court that has upheld the right of news organizations to lie on air.

Public figures can't win defamation cases based on truth alone. Public figures have to prove malice to win a defamation case. That is, not only was the statement untrue, but the journalist knew it was untrue, and wrote it with the purpose of defaming the public figure.

Private people don't have to prove malice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com