Jason Victor Serinus of Port Townsend Washington Calls out Police Chief Tom Olson for Endangering Us at the #LetJulieSwim Press Conference by Amy Sousa.

 

Jason Victor Serinus eMail to City Manager John Mauro

Subject: Re: Chief Thomas Olson"s comments to the PDN

Date: Friday, August 26, 2022

Hi John,

I’m running late on a CD review whose deadline I missed, but I’ve been trying to piece

together what I know of the timeline. I must send this and then disengage from email so I can

do my work.

I first wrote the Chief on August 8 about security concerns at the Aug. 15 CC meeting, which

many feared would be filled with Jaman and Sousa supporters, and perhaps with Proud Boys in the wings. (THEY WERE THE VIOLENT ONES ALL ALONG, INCITING FEAR AND PANIC, MISINFORMATION VIOLENCE)

 I Cc’d City Council members. I sent a second email about security for pro-trans

speakers at the CC meeting on the 11th. (WHY WOULD THE CITY COUNCIL TAKE A SIDE, WHY NOT DIGNITY AND SAFETY FOR ALL?)

(WHY DID OLSON CALL JASON, WHY DID THE POLICE AND CITY DISCRIMINATE AND CHOOSE A SIDE, AND NOT DIGNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS, SAFETY FOR ALL. WHY THIS GUY GETS A CALL AND NOT AMY OR JULIE ON THESE MATTERS)

Then I spoke with the Chief by phone on the 12th - he called me while I working out at PTAC - and learned of his plan to admit people from both Amy’s side and Beau’s side to the August 15 meeting. (That, thankfully, did not happen.)  (THEY DENIED US DUE PROCESS BY VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION, BULLYING AND PHYSICALLY STOPPING US FROM SPEAKING AT A CITY COUNCIL MEETING)

When we spoke then, I asked him how he planned to handle potential Proud Boy presence,

and was told that from his experience, they wouldn’t act unless provoked (to which I said to

myself… which means they very may well act, because no one can control who shows up at

the rally.)  THERE WAS NO PROUD BOYS, AMY WAS A LIBERAL, JULIE A LIBERAL TO MY KNOWLEDGE. JUST BECAUSE ALL MEDIA PICKED UP THE STORY DOES NOT MAKE JULIE AND AMY SUDDENLY CONSERVATIVE. JASON AND OTHERS SPREAD SO MANY LIES THAT INCITED VIOLENCE ON AN 80 YEAR OLD WOMAN, AND THE REST OF US. THERE WAS NO HUMAN RIGHTS, EQUALITY, DIGNITY OF SAFETY. THEY ATTACKED US, SOUNDS LIKE THEY WERE AFRAID OF BEING ATTACKED SO THEY ATTACKED?? WHAT?

I also asked if he planned to ask the Sheriff’s department for support, and was told

“No". I would think I discussed the rally at that time, but I won’t swear to that in a court of

law. Hey, I was catching my breath from my workout and sitting on the steps to the gym’s

second floor so I wouldn’t disturb other folks in the gym.

So the question, when were Thomas and the City first aware of the rally? I haven’t done a

public records request, but the day Amy Sousa applied to the City of PT for a rally permit

would be the day (unless he was monitoring her online.) She certainly announced her plans for

the rally as early as August 11. on the Dori Monson Show 

So, that’s four days notice, not 2.5 days, for Amy’s rally. And concerns for safety inside and outside the August 15 CC meeting had been expressed well before that.

Please excuse if I don’t respond further until Monday. I’ve got to head to the music room and

then walk the Three Rabid Terrorers of Bell St.

Thanks so much,

Jason

On Aug 26, 2022, at 1:17 PM, John Mauro <JMauro@cityofpt.us> wrote:

A blind eye to what, Jason?

John Mauro | City Manager

From: Jason Victor Serinus <serinusjv@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 1:09 PM

To: John Mauro <JMauro@cityofpt.us>

Subject: Re: Chief Thomas Olson's comments to the PDN

Thanks John.

I wrote my note before the Leader’s latest interview with the Chief. He now says in

print that he only had 2.5 days to prepare.  Really? My, how time flies. It is impossible to turn a blind eye to this. 

Jason

On Aug 26, 2022, at 6:52 AM, 

John Mauro <JMauro@cityofpt.us> wrote:

Thanks, Jason. I appreciate you passing this along. It’s easy to criticize the

police for too much intervention or not enough but I’ll let the facts of the

event tell the story. 

We also take any lessons learned into the future as we determine how to balance people’s right to free speech in a public area with ensuring public safety.

Best wishes,

John

John Mauro | City Manager

THE FUTURE JOHN, WE WERE HARMED, ASSAULTED AND HAVE ONGOING ASSAULTS IN PUBLIC AND ONLINE, AND ONGOING PTSD. YOU ARE GOING TO LEARN A LESSON FOR THE FUTURE BUT NOT ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT HAPPENED? YOU HAVE NOT LEARNED YOUR LESSON.  FIRST YOU HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, TO START WITH YOU CHOOSING SIDES FROM DAY ONE WITH NO INVESTIGATION AND WITH COMPLETE PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION.

From: <serinusjv@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 7:38 PM

To: John Mauro <JMauro@cityofpt.us>

Subject: Chief Thomas Olson's comments to the PDN

HI John,

I sent this to City Council members on August 22. I’ve since learned that

you’re the person who interacts with the Chief. Hence I send it to you as

well.

Hope you saw my letter in this week’s Leader.

Thanks so much,

Jason

Dear City Councilmembers,

My thoughts will come as no surprise to those of you who communicated

with Police Chief Thomas Olson about the August 15 events in advance of

and on the day of the rally and Proclamation presentation.

MANY ON BOTH SIDES COMMUNICATED WITH OLSON. HE DID NOTHING TO SEPARATE THE 2 GROUPS AND ENDANGERED US ALL. 

I spoke with Thomas multiple times. When we spoke on the afternoon of

August 15, he kindly clarified for me (and everyone else who had begun to

line up to speak at the meeting) where we would enter and how we

should line up. I shared that information with others, and ended up first in

line on the steps of City Hall.

I watched as people gathered across the street from City Hall, began to

chant, etc. I also witnessed one anti-trans protestor who came over to our

side of the street to plead with police to intervene after shoving had

commenced. As dramatic as she may have been, I have realized in

retrospect that there was due cause for concern. Yet the police I saw

were very slow to enter the crowd.

FIRST OF ALL WE WERE NOT ANTI-TRANS JASON. WE WERE SIMPLY INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING OUR THOUGHTS AND BELIEFS ON AN IMPORTANT LOCAL MATTER. WE WERE BEING ASSAULTED.  THIS EMAIL SHOWS THAT IT WAS OBVIOUS WE WERE BEING ATTACKED AND OBVIOUS THAT THE POLICE DID NOTHING. 

I am incredulous that the Chief says that the Port Townsend Police

Department lacked sufficient time to prepare for the August 15 protest. I

cannot be the only citizen aside from Council members and Sousa who

spoke with him and questioned if there would be adequate protection. 

I specifically asked if he had asked the Sheriff’s Department for assistance.

The Chief was fully aware that anyone could attend the event. He must be

aware that the continued protests in Portland turned violent, not because

of peaceful demonstrators, but because of the black-masked few who

infiltrated demonstrations and acted out against police and property. 

He must have seen the black masked people who showed up in the

afternoon as the rally was about to begin. 

Yet he told Peter Segall at the PDN, “Our primary focus and goal at an event like this is life, safety and property. We can’t do that when my officers are intermingling in a

Crowd.”

How does ensure safety when one stands at arms length from those who

need safety? This event didn’t call for police intermingling; it called for

clear boundaries. 

Why wasn’t a safety line of sorts established between demonstrators and counter-demonstrators? After all, there were Proud Boys present.

I DID NOT SEE ANY PROUD BOYS. JULIE AND AMY WERE LIBERALS AS FAR AS I KNEW. THERE WAS COMMON SENSE CONSERVATIVE FILMING, WHERE WERE THE PROUD BOYS THAT NIGHT? TO MY KNOWLEDGE NONE WERE THERE. 

The afternoon rally could have turned into a major melee. While we’re

lucky it didn’t, the documented skirmishes that occurred have given

strength to those who would use trans rights, LGBTQ rights, and human

rights to divide the electorate. That in addition to the death threats and

More.

I respect and am grateful for a police presence. I am grateful that Thomas

was present for my calls and responded to community concerns. But I

remain unconvinced by his explanation.

jason victor serinus

Source of Public Records eMail

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RgJTWKQw9rAgCmvIw5xWFSR-6bXRpRY5/view?usp=sharing

Why did the City of Port Townsend CHOOSE one side of the YMCA Julie Jaman issue with No Due Process, no investigation of Policy Violation, no Investigation into ANY FACTS or Allegations, No Investigation of compliance with State Law? the City of Port Townsend Simply Took a Side and Incited and Angry Mob to Attack, Suppress Free Speech, Threaten and Assault.

  the Port Townsend YMCA Incited a MOB. It would have been so Easy to simply give dignity, safety and respect to both parties. 

Why did the City manager not contact all sides for input and equality?

The City of Port Townsend, Manager John Mauro, Mayor David Fabor and the City Council, as well as the chief of police discriminated against 80 year old Julie Jaman and the woman telling her story, rape survivor woman’s activist Amy Sousa. The City communicated their prejudice right away amongst themselves, all the way up to standing by watching 400 violent protesters mob 11 of us who spoke at the Julie Jaman Press Conference and our dozen or so supporters.

I allege that John Mauro, City Manager and Chief Olson, as well as other city officials defamed, prejudiced, and discriminated against Julie Jaman from the very first moment she cried out for help, for safety, for boundaries and equal rights under the law.

They Clearly Denied Julie Jaman Due Process as a Matter of Law. And the Port Townsend City Attorney Heidi Greenwood, and Steve King Public Works Director, “looped in” did nothing to speak up regarding this denial of due process, human rights violation, prejudice, elder abuse or to speak regarding LAW, Policies and Procedures, and equal rights of due process..

Why Back one side of the story immediately with no investigation?

Why discriminate against Elders, Lesbians, Women Rights?

Why pick a side at all?

Why NOT neutrality?

Why not innocent until proven guilty?

Why not reserve comment, hesitate, perhaps on picking a “side”, until, at least, an investigation into “did the YMCA employee follow the rule of 3 policy”? Did the YMCA have the proper facilities per law, state code? Why simply attack, prejudice, defame, humiliate, abuse and incite violence on an 80 year old long time member of our community?

The City Manager of Port Townsend, was at a crucial moment here, all he had to do was be Neutral and look into it or let it be between the YMCA and the Patron of the YMCA. Instead the CITY took a side, without an investigation and endangered Julie Jaman, and Amy Sousa who, days later were assaulted by a mob of hundreds of violent protesters. I and 10 other speakers and our dozen or so supporters were also attacked.

The City told the Police to Stand Down, we had no protection, no safety measures and no protection between groups. The Prejudice before the press conference was clear in the communication between Chief of Police John Mauro and Chief Tom Olson.

The Julie Jaman Press Conference was mostly elders, and the rest of us over 50 pretty much. This young strong violent mob attacked us. They wrapped pride flags around our head, I panicked at the suffocation as did others. They knocked us to the brick ground, pinned us to brick walls, robbed us, destroyed our property, threatened us, hit us with signs and flag poles, yelled and used sound devices to hurt and damage our ears, and as they assaulted us, the Port Townsend Police stood across the street and watched it happen. Until we finally got 911 to bring in the State Police.

This mob was created, incited, enabled, protected and defended by the actions of the City of Port Townsend.

Below we see a FOI eMail from City Manager John Mauro on July 27, 2022, the day after Julie Jaman was “trespassed” from the Port Townsend YMCA.

Subject: trespassed individual from YMCA/MV Pool

From: JMauro@cityofpt.us

To: sking@cityofpt.us; HGreenwood@cityofpt.us; tolson@cityofpt.us

Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 2:34:33 PM

“Hi All I wanted to make sure we’re all in the loop re: an issue that just came my way via YMCA CEO Wendy Bart. Apparently an individual was trespassed at the pool for verbally abusing a YMCA staff member there at the locker room this week. Spotty details and a call back to Wendy for more info, but I she noted in a brief message that her staff member, a trans person who identifies as female, was given a barrage of terrible accusations and insults (I can provide examples – really hard to type them) and had to be asked to leave the facility and not to return. This person was identified as Julie Jaman.

Chief, making sure you and your team are across it. Looping Heidi in as I do when things terrify me and Steve from a MV Pool/facility perspective and given the nexus with other City-related issues and behavior.

I want to respect the sensitive nature of this but also to ensure we do the right thing and back the Y’s decision (which I believe they are allowed to make given our operations agreement).

Best

John”

Link to FOI eMail

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_8PiIlV8ebxIUCc628njwAPX8Ox62krG/view?usp=sharing

The word “apparently” implies that Mauro does not know if it is actually true, yet he went on a campaign to incite prejudice and discrimination which led to violence against 80 year old Julie Jaman, Amy Sousa a local woman’s activist and rape survivor and anyone who would dare support an elder in our community.

All hearsay, and no account for Julie’s “feelings”, “rights” “intuition” or her side of the story.

Why was City Manager John Mauro “terrified”? Seems to me it is admitting Liability.

There was no investigation into any allegations before the City of Port Townsend came riding in with their proverbial war horses.

Turns out the YMCA did not follow the “rule of 3 policy” for children’s safety and Julie Jaman’s intuition was absolutely correct. But instead of being thanked for bringing this dangerous policy violation to the YMCA’s attention, and assuring Julie Jaman they would look into it and remind the staffer to follow the policy in the future, they incited the community to gang up against Julie Jaman, an 80 year old woman that had went to that pool for decades. No Dignity, No Respect, No Right to Due Process. Clear Discrimination. Clear Denial of Due Process. Clear Abuse of Power. It also turns out that the YMCA had violated state law and did not have the proper changing areas. The Port Townsend YMCA added changing areas to comply with law, AFTER Julie Jaman was banned and NOT reinstated. Instead of thanking Julie Jaman for bringing this to the Olympic YMCA’s attention, and assuring her they were correcting the issue, they called the cops, they berated her, humiliated her and then put out a call to action for hundreds of young strong activists to attack her and her supporters, of which I was one of them.

The City of Port Townsend, John Mauro City Manager, Heidi Greenwood City Attorney, Mayor David Fabor and the City Council did, in fact, NOT respect the “sensitive nature of this” nor provide due process or equality under the law, human rights, senior rights, civil rights nor constitutional rights.

City Manager John Maura backs the Y, with NO Investigation or Due Process. And says, “I believe they are allowed to make given our operations agreement”

If the City believed the YMCA had a right to do what they did then why not simply leave it up to the YMCA?

Oath? He Denied Due Process and Incited a MOB

Why did the City get so righteous, so involved, and make a proclamation that incited a riot, brought in militant antifa, and emboldened them all, along with Olympic Pride activists to attack us, silence our voices, assault us, rob us, destroy our property ?

Why did the City of Port Townsend work up the community to attack Julie Jaman and her supporters with violent force? Why not just let the City Pool Managers operating under an “operations agreement” with the city, simply stand independent with the decision. Why did the CITY represent and stand with ONE PARTY over the Other? I allege this is illegal. I allege this is discrimination. I allege that the City of Port Townsend is Liable for what they have done, and there should be a criminal investigation into all parties, along with indictments of all involved, as to prevent this from ever happening again.

Posted here by Reverend Crystal Cox, All Faith Church

ReverendCrystalCox@Gmail.com

Port Townsend Libby Wennstrom Councilwoman. Mean, Nasty, Bully. Find the Truth for Yourself

  Libby Wennstrom Port Townsend Councilwoman Expose' Group by Reverend Crystal Cox All Faith Church.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1305220590226205

Port Townsend’s Woman’s Rights Activist Amy Sousa at Let Women Speak Rally in New York

 Port Townsend’s Woman’s Rights Activist Amy Sousa in New York Standing Up for Rape Survivors, Women and Girls, and all our right to dignity, safety, personal boundaries and consent at #LetWomenSpeak Rally.  Standing Up for Our Right to Say NO to anyone in our space and All our Right to Consent

Click Below to Watch AMY Sousa on New York News. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOuX_Wu28ew 

Reverend Crystal Cox speaks on the Soul of Port Townsend, Non-Gmo, Big Pharma, the Healing Community, Organics, Non-Hormone Food and the Community She thought she was moving to.

 I Thought Port Townsend Was My People. Well some of “my people” indeed, and I sure do Love the Land, the Water, the Critters. Port Townsend is a Magical Place, however those in charge of the government, the food coop, the big local non-profits, and the “authorities” well they do not represent the Soul of Port Townsend to Me, yet they are running the show. 

Port Townsend Washington sells itself as an Organic Community, a community of tolerance, open minded. A community that is not about Big Pharma and Big Government. I moved to PT in 2012 as I truly believed that is what the community was. Then Covid happened and I found out that those who fought for non-GMO foods, fought to have foods without hormones, those who fought for natural cures and against Big Pharma, those who I thought stood for tolerance, sovereign individuality, had become the party, the people, the community of oppression, of big pharma, of Big Government owning my body and deciding what I put into it, of exclusion and not inclusion.  I made this video / sermon / prayer for Port Townsend, the community that I live in. 

Click Below to Watch Video of Rev. Crystal Cox of Port Townsend Speak and Pray on these Issues. 

https://rumble.com/vu15qb-reverend-crystal-cox-prayer-for-port-townsend..html

Reverend Crystal Cox Port Townsend Washington Landmark, First of it's Kind Free Speech Case. Hero Dictionary: Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox - Wikipedia.

  "Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon concerning online defamation. 

Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Crystal Cox for maintaining several blogs that accused Obsidian and Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. 

The court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, but found ONE single post to be more factual in its assertions and therefore defamatory. For that post, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. 

This case is notable for the court's ruling that Cox, as an internet blogger, was not a journalist and was thus not protected by Oregon's media shield laws,

[1] although the court later clarified that its ruling did not categorically exclude blogs from being considered media and indicated that its decision was based in part upon Cox offering to remove negative posts for a $2,500 fee.

[2] In January 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to the bankruptcy trustee.

[3] It also ordered a new trial on the blog post at issue.[3]

Background

Obsidian Finance Group is a financial advisory firm which was managing the bankruptcy of Summit 1031, a real estate company. Crystal Cox is a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger" who maintained the blogs obsidianfinancesucks.com, summit1031sucks.com, and bankruptcycorruption.com, amongst various others. 

On her blogs, Cox accused Obsidian and its co-founder Kevin Padrick of committing tax fraud, paying off the media and politicians, intimidating and threatening whistleblowers, and engaging in various other illegal activities in their handling of the bankruptcy. Cox repeatedly claimed that her investigations would expose Obsidian and Padrick's corruption. 

In response, Obsidian and Padrick brought suit against Cox for defamation, asserting that all of Cox's claims were false and damaging Padrick's reputation.[4][5]

Procedural History

The court initially intended to dismiss the defamation claims against Cox. To establish a defamation claim, the alleged defamatory material must be asserting a fact that can be proven true or false, as opposed to merely stating an opinion. 

The court held that even though Cox's allegations of fraud and corruption are technically assertions of fact, they appeared on obviously biased blogs and Cox made no attempt to provide supporting evidence.

The court ruled that in the context of Cox's ranting, hyperbolic blog posts, the allegations are unlikely to be taken as fact by any of her audience. As a result, the court held that Cox's right to voice her opinions was protected by the First Amendment and that her statements could not be considered defamation.[4]

However, after plaintiffs submitted additional blog posts for review, the court found one post to be more factual in tone and content than the others. 

The post delved into the details of Summit's bankruptcy filing and tax liability, and made specific accusations against Obsidian and Padrick for lying on tax filings and stealing money. The court allowed the defamation claim on this one particular post to move forward.[5]

A trial was held on November 29, 2011, and the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding Obsidian and Padrick $2.5 million in damages.[6][7]

Opinion of the Court

After the trial, on November 30, 2011, the court issued an opinion clarifying some of its pre-trial oral rulings.[6]

Oregon's shield and retraction statutes

Cox had claimed that her allegations against Obsidian and Padrick were based on evidence from a secret source, and she refused to name her source citing media shield protection.[1] Under Oregon's media shield laws, any person involved with a "medium of communication to the public" did not have to reveal the source of their information, where "medium of communication" is defined as "including but not limited to" a list of traditional modes of media such as newspapers, magazines, television, and so on.[8] 

The court did not specifically decline to interpret the statutes to include bloggers as "media", rather holding that based on the facts of the case, Cox was not affiliated with any of the enumerated mediums, had no indicia of reliability as a journalist, and thus she did not qualify for the media shield laws.[6]

Additionally, the court held that even if Cox could be considered "media", she would still not qualify. Oregon's media shield does not apply in a civil defamation lawsuit, where the defendant has asserted "a defense based on the[...] source of allegedly defamatory information."[6][8]

Cox also tried to assert immunity under Oregon's retraction statutes, which state that general damages for defamation could only be awarded if the plaintiffs had sought a retraction, which Padrick had not. 

The court again held that Cox did not qualify because her blogs and practices did not fall under any of the traditional modes of media specifically enumerated in the statute.[6][9]

First Amendment issues

Cox asserted that because the plaintiffs are public figures and because she blogged about a matter of public concern, First Amendment protections are triggered. As a result, to prove defamation, actual malice on Cox's part must be shown. "Actual malice" would require that Cox had knowledge of the truth and knowingly disregarded the facts, instead of simply making a false assertion of facts on her blog. Ultimately, the court held that neither Obsidian or Padrick were public figures, stating that the Summit 1031 bankruptcy Cox blogged on was neither controversial nor newsworthy, and Cox was the only person trying to publicize the issue. As a result, actual malice did not need to be proven by the plaintiffs.[6]

Media Protections to Defamation

Cox also asserted that even if the plaintiffs weren't public figures, in order for the plaintiffs to claim damages, they must prove actual malice because she is a "media" outlet. Here, the court again held that Cox did not qualify as "media". In its reasoning, the court cited her lack of a journalism degree, lack of affiliation with traditional media outlets, lack of adherence to journalistic standards such as fact-checking and fair coverage, and the absence of Cox writing any original material rather than assembling the works of others. As such, the plaintiffs could seek damages without any further evidence of actual malice.[6]

Reactions and status after district court ruling

The holdings in this case re-ignited a public discussion over whether bloggers should be considered journalists and entitled to the same protections.[10] Cox suggested that this case "should matter to everyone who writes on the Internet" and that if she "[doesn't] win [her] appeal, we all lose".[1][11] Padrick responded by saying that "the concept of media [would be] rendered worthless [...] if anyone can self-proclaim themselves to be media". 

Padrick also pointed out the real damage done to his reputation and business by Cox, and stated his belief that he would have won the case even if Cox had been considered  "media".[11][12][13] 

Cox's motion for a new trial was denied. Currently, Cox is seeking to appeal the judgment, citing First Amendment grounds. Obsidian has filed a motion to seize and sell Cox's right to appeal to help satisfy its $2.5 million judgment, on the grounds that Cox's appeal right is intangible personal property subject to seizure. Cox is attempting to block the seizure to proceed with the appeal.[15][16][17]

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling

After granting Cox motion for appeal a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court issued its judgement in Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox (2014) on January 17, 2014.[3]

Judgement summary and First Amendment defamation impact

Judgement summary

A court summary produced by court staff summarized the Ninth Circuit ruling as follows:

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to a bankruptcy trustee on a defamation claim against an Internet blogger. The panel extended the principle held in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 350 (1974), that the First Amendment required only a "negligence standard for private defamation actions", is not limited to cases with institutional media defendants. The panel further held that the blog post at issue addressed a matter of public concern, and the district court should have instructed the jury that it could not find the blogger liable for defamation unless it found that she acted negligently. The panel held that the bankruptcy trustee did not become a "public official" simply by virtue of court appointment, or by receiving compensation from the court. The panel remanded for a new trial on the blog post at issue, and affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the other blog posts that were deemed constitutionally protected opinions.[3]

First Amendment defamation impact

The issue whether First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to both the institutional press and individual speakers has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.[3] 

But every United States appeals court which addressed this issue concluded[18][19][20][21][22][23][3] that the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan (1964) and its progeny case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers.[3][24] The Ninth Circuit followed this trend with its January 2014 ruling by holding that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless he acted negligently.[25] The court essentially said journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment.[26] 

The court ruling is also a novelty because for the first time [27][28] an appeals court ruled that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently.[25]

The three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled[3] ruled that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages.[25] Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning public matters can only be sued if they're negligent i.e. the plaintiff must prove the defendants negligence – the same standard that applies when news media are sued. 

The federal appellate court thus essentially said that journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment[26] and, in the words of Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, that nonprofessional press, especially bloggers, "for First Amendment purposes, have the same rights as others do, as for example the institutional media does."[24]

The unanimous three-judge panel rejected the argument that the negligence standard established for private defamation actions by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. only applied to "the institutional press."[24] "The Gertz court did not expressly limit its holding to the defamation of institutional media defendants," Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for the three-judge panel. "And, although the Supreme Court has never directly held that the Gertz rule applies beyond the institutional press, it has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers."[24] 

Hurwitz wrote: "The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings or tried to get both sides of a story. … In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue -- not the identity of the speaker -- provide the First Amendment touchstones."[29]

Source and Full Document with Lots of Links

https://www.herodictionary.com/wiki/en/Obsidian_Finance_Group,_LLC_v._Cox