Talk:Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox

A fact from Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 March 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, a court in Oregon, United States, held that a blogger was not a member of the media?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox.

Wikipedia

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

NPOV

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Added NPOV tag: the initial write of the article seems to have been based on a couple of news articles that missed facts that are less favorable to the defendant, and as those facts came out, they seem to have all been squeezed into a sentence near the end. I've added a couple of sentences, but a full-scale rewrite might be needed. 130.132.198.162 (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and also, might be worth mentioning the connected WIPO litigation if someone has time - https://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/randazza-v-cox-decision-d2012-1525.pdf 130.132.198.162 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Cox wins appeal

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Does someone who has been editing this article want to incorporate the latest news of Cox winning the appeal and overturning the defamation award?

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/01/17/12-35238.pdf

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-blogger-1st-amendment-20140118,0,3524030.story#axzz2r0WREQma

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/17/us-usa-blogger-ruling-idUSBREA0G1HI20140117

Otherwise I will give it a go Philiashasspots (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/01/20/federal-court-bloggers-have-same-first-amendment-rights-as-journalists/ Philiashasspots (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of California, Berkeley supported by WikiProject Cyberlaw and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic