Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.I find that alleged behavior execrable and, if true, would count as PRESENCE of Malice in my book. Just as we railed against Righthaven, I'd add Cox to that list if the statement in the article is true. She'd lose at retrial not because she is a blogger - that appears to be settled - but that she would be considered an extortionist.
The principal in Near v Minnesota was not an honorable man. Didn’t matter. Prior restraint is not constitutional. The First Amendment is not negotiable. If there is libel/slander, there is a remedy available other than prior restraint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_v._Minnesota
http://www.class.uh.edu/comm/classes/comm4303/section3/nearvsminnesota.html
Yeah, I saw that too, and I feel as you do, but unless there is a new trial (Which I doubt), we will never know. To me the larger point is that we (the people) can post without fear of being sued for an honest misstatement. That it took a snake to force this ruling out of the 9th Circus is a small thing in my mind.