MORE ON CRYSTAL COX FROM JOHN DVORAK: The outrageous verdict in Crystal Cox’s case argues that bloggers are not journalists.

The judge, recent Obama appointee Marco Hernandez, asserted that as a blogger with no other credentials, she was not a journalist and was entitled to no protection.

He said, “Although the defendant is a self-proclaimed ‘investigative blogger’ and defines herself as ‘media,’ the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law in the first instance.”

Apparently, there are now new qualifications for journalists. So who decides these qualifications? Hernandez? Where did he get this from? I’ve never seen a laundry list in the U.S. that precludes bloggers. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights, to wit: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In this instance, the concept of the “press” means any dissemination of information through a communications medium. In the past, this would be a flyer, pamphlet, or newspaper. Now, it includes TV, radio, magazines, PDF files, and blogs. Just because the media have modernized, it does not suddenly mean that the rules have changed.

More importantly, when we look at journalists’ rights, there are no admissions whatsoever. You do not need a license—like you do in most South American countries, for example—to be a journalist. I’m not sure where Hernandez got his ideas from, but it seems someone failed to emphasize the Constitution.

By his definition, all Cox has to do is publish a pamphlet or write a book to be a journalist. The defining difference between a pamphleteer and a blogger is, frankly, beyond my grasp. . . . Hopefully this un-American precedent will be reversed shortly. Meanwhile, the public should be outraged. Furthermore, for years, many writers have advocated for the idea that the Bill of Rights is outdated in the modern era and that journalists per se should be regulated. These people should be strongly rebuked. If we do not protect our rights, we lose them.

Read the whole thing. Especially if you’re Marco Hernandez.

UPDATE: Reader Henry Vanderbilt writes:

The laundry list in question comes from the Oregon journalist shield law definition of “journalist”. It could be argued Judge Hernandez is commendably restricting himself to ruling on the letter of the law involved, leaving the Oregon legislature to correct any resulting injustice.

Of course, the laundry list he cites is preceded by “includes, but is not limited to” (http://blogs.spjnetwork.org/foi/2011/12/08/judge-oregon-shield-law-doesnt-cover-blogger-in-defamation-suit/) so we’re back to a judge with discretion to consider bloggers to be journalists for source-shielding purposes choosing not to. Cox says she plans to appeal. Any thoughts on the odds for a more sensible result, Professor?

I think her prospects are poor if she continues to represent herself. I disapprove of journalist shield laws in general, but I think that if they exist they should be based on whether you’re doing journalism, not who your paycheck (if any) comes from. Members of the nomeklatura, of course, take a different view.