An Oregon judge has ruled that a Montana blogger is not eligible for the legal protections afforded to journalists, letting stand a $2.5 million defamation verdict.

The blogger, a Montana woman named Crystal Cox, had become a thorn in the side of an attorney named Kevin Padrick. Padrick is the principal of a firm named Obsidian Finance Group. Cox styles herself an "investigative blogger," and has created numerous websites with names like "obsidianfinancesucks.com," "bankruptcytrusteefraud.com," and "oregonshyster.com," in which she accused Padrick and Obsidian of misconduct in their handling of a bankruptcy case.

In January, Padrick filed a defamation lawsuit against Cox, charging that her accusations were false and asking for $10 million in damages. Last month, a jury found Cox guilty and awarded Padrick and his firm $2.5 million.

Oregon law provides special legal protections against defamation lawsuits to journalists associated with traditional media outlets. Such publications are immune from defamation suits unless the defamed individual first requests a retraction. Journalists at recognized media outlets are also protected from revealing confidential sources. Cox argued that she was eligible for protection under both provisions and asked the judge to set aside the verdict.

But Judge Marco Hernandez disagreed. "Although 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," the judge wrote. "Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the [Oregon journalist shield] law."

That result was apparently dictated by the text of the Oregon shield statute, which singles out those specific media technologies for legal protection. But later in the decision, Hernandez considered whether the defamation lawsuit ran afoul of the First Amendment more generally. First Amendment law sets a high threshold for defamation cases against journalists.

But Hernandez once again ruled that Cox was not a journalist. He noted the lack of "(1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting 'the other side' to get both sides of a story."

The claim that Cox isn't a journalist is made plausible by an e-mail uncovered by Kashmir Hill at Forbes (Disclosure: I'm also a blogger at Forbes).

Padrick supplied Hill with a copy of an e-mail Cox had sent to Obsidian Finance a few days after the defamation lawsuit was filed. It offered Obsidian "PR Services and Search Engine Management Services starting at $2500 a month" to "protect online reputations." While she doesn't say so explicitly, the implication seems to be that if Obsidian forks over some cash, Cox will make sites like "obsidianfinancesucks.com" go away.

We e-mailed Cox seeking comment, but we have yet to get a response.