SLAPP-Blog — Public Participation Project

Nutty Trollish Guy On The Internet Files Nutty Trollish Defamation Lawsuit In Random State

"Okay, look. We’ve really tried to ignore Chuck Johnson. It’s pretty obvious that he’s the kind of guy who does a bunch of the stuff that he does to get more attention. We’ve never covered his various hilarious legal threats, though you can see a bunch of them nicely cataloged at this website. If you’re not aware, you can do some Google searches, but suffice it to say that he plays a “journalist” on the internet, and he’s somewhat infamous for the various stunts he pulls, combined with his penchant for threatening people with libel, as well as for many of his biggest stories being, well… ridiculous. A few weeks ago he threw something of a public tantrum because Twitter kicked him off its service. He had a lawyer in Missouri, John Burns, send a ridiculous threat letter to Twitter, based on an interpretation of the law that might be described as “crazy” by some and… “wrong” by many others.

MOMENTUM BUILDS FOR FEDERAL ANTI-SLAPP LAW

by: Mark Goldowitz

CASP Joins 33 Other Organizations in Letter Urging Congress to Enact SPEAK FREE Act.

Washington State Says Its Anti-SLAPP Law Is Unconstitutional

From Mike Masnick at TechDirt:

"For years, we’ve talked about the importance of anti-SLAPP laws that help quickly toss out lawsuits whose sole purpose are to silence critics. A key point that we’ve made is the need for a federal anti-SLAPP law, because until then, we’re at the mercy of a patchwork of state laws. Some states have no anti-SLAPP law. Some have weak ones. A few have strong ones. In just the past month alone we’ve discussed Florida strengthening its anti-SLAPP law, and Nevada’s attempt to weaken its anti-SLAPP law. Meanwhile, a court in DC issued a ruling that greatly limited the effectiveness of DC’s anti-SLAPP law

Support for SPEAK FREE Act Keeps Rolling In!

Since H.R. 2304, the SPEAK FREE Act of 2015, was introduced in the House on May 13, 2015, numerous organizations and individuals have voiced their support for this important bill. Additionally, two more co-sponsors have also been added to the bill: Tom Marino, R-PA, and Randy Forbes, R-VA.

Here are just some examples of the support that the introduction has been getting:

Electronic Frontier Foundation:

“EFF applauds the bipartisan effort of the representatives who introduced the SPEAK FREE Act. We hope Congress will quickly act on this important legislation.”

Federal Anti-SlappEvan MascagniMay 27, 2015SPEAK FREE Act, Federal Anti-SLAPP LegislationComment

Yelp review gets couple sued

A flooring company brought a defamation lawsuit against a Colorado couple for negative reviews they left on Yelp. The parties eventually settled the suit, but the dispute cost the defendant $65,000 in legal fees.

Speak Free Act Introduced - 2015

Federal efforts for “Free Speech Act” were launched in 2015-2016 in collaboration with PPP.

Federal Legislation, Federal Anti-SlappEvan MascagniMay 13, 2015federal Victory

RCFP: Bill enhancing Florida's anti-SLAPP law heads to governor for approval

From Kimberly Chow at RCFP:

"A Florida bill that would revise the state’s narrow anti-SLAPP law to provide a greater level of protection for speakers against meritless lawsuits has passed both houses of the legislature and now awaits Gov. Rick Scott’s signature.

Florida’s anti-SLAPP law, Fla. Stat. § 768.295, currently only provides for the speedy dismissal of SLAPP suits when such frivolous suits are filed by government entities. In practice, “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” or SLAPPs, are filed by a wide range of plaintiffs, with far more deleterious effects on speakers than just those suits brought by the government.

State Anti-SLAPPEvan MascagniMay 6, 2015State Anti-SLAPP, FloridaComment

ITIF: Why We Need Federal Legislation To Protect Public Speech Online

The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation just published this report advocating for federal anti-SLAPP legislation:

http://www.itif.org/publications/2015/05/04/why-we-need-federal-legislation-protect-public-speech-online

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) is a non-partisan research and educational institute – a think tank – whose mission is to formulate and promote public policies to advance technological innovation and productivity internationally, in Washington, and in the states. Recognizing the vital role of technology in ensuring prosperity, ITIF focuses on innovation, productivity, and digital economy issues.

Federal Anti-SlappEvan MascagniMay 5, 2015Federal Anti-SLAPP LegislationComment

DC Appeals Court Says Anti-SLAPP Laws Shouldn't Apply In Federal Courts

From Mike Masnick at Techdirt:

"We’ve discussed for quite some time the importance of anti-SLAPP laws, and how it’s ridiculous that we don’t have a federal anti-SLAPP law. Once again, anti-SLAPP laws are used to toss out bogus lawsuits that were clearly filed for the sake of silencing someone’s speech (SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”). Right now only some states have them, and there are many variations in the various state laws, with some much better than others. Unfortunately, a new ruling in the DC Circuit appeals court may make state anti-SLAPP laws much less effective. That’s because it says, more or less, that state anti-SLAPP laws only apply to cases in state/local courts, and not those that are in federal court (such as any case between two parties in different states).

More here.

Nevada May Be About to Lose Its Great Anti-SLAPP Law

Another piece of the proposed changes to Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law, this time from our friends over at Techdirt:

"We’ve mentioned many times the importance of anti-SLAPP laws in protecting people who are being sued solely to try to shut them up. It’s still a travesty that we don’t have a federal anti-SLAPP law but are reliant on various state anti-SLAPP laws. In case you’re not familiar with them, SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” Anti-SLAPP laws basically allow people who are sued to quickly get lawsuits dismissed when it’s obvious that the entire point of the lawsuit is to silence whoever is being sued, rather than for any legitimate legal purpose. For years, California was seen as having one of the best anti-SLAPP laws, but in recent years both Texas and Nevada upped the ante in anti-SLAPP laws, making them even stronger. Nevada’s had a particularly useful feature: it would award “reasonable costs, attorney’s fees and monetary relief” for defendants who were wrongfully hit with SLAPP suits. Basically, it provided a real deterrent against SLAPP suits.

State Anti-SLAPPEvan MascagniApril 20, 2015State Anti-SLAPP, NevadaComment

Why Are Nevada State Senators Trying to Eviscerate the State's Anti-SLAPP Statute

From our friend Popehat:

"In 2013 Nevada passed the strongest anti-SLAPP statutes in the United States. This statute was muscular. Not only did it cover a wide array of speech, and require substantial proof of the potential validity of a claim, it had frills like a potential $10,000 penalty on top of attorney fees for SLAPPers and a private cause of action so targets of SLAPP suits could sue their tormentors. My friend and colleague Marc Randazza, First Amendment badass, helped frame it, which is why it was so strong. It’s already proven effective in Nevada’s courts. It’s an excellent tool to protect free speech from meritless lawsuits.

So who in the Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee is trying to kill it, and why?"

State Anti-SLAPPEvan MascagniApril 17, 2015State Anti-SLAPP, Nevada Comment

Montana paper sued by city over open-records request wins in court

After The Billings Gazette filed a public records request on a potential tip about mishandling of public money at a Montana landfill, the city of Billings, MT, filed a lawsuit against the paper. The editor of the paper characterized the city’s legal response as a SLAPP suit. Though the state does not have an anti-SLAPP law, the newspaper won, and the city agreed to pay about $12,000 in attorneys’ fees.

State Anti-SLAPPEvan MascagniApril 14, 2015Montana, State Anti-SLAPP

Anti-SLAPP bill to go before Minnesota House committee

From Pioneer Press:

"Keith Mueller is pushing to change a state law to protect someone from being sued for calling the cops.

The law’s current language protecting public participation is too vague and needs to include reporting apparent unlawful conduct to police, he argues.

Mueller’s effort stems from his experience: He was sued by a man whose acts were the subject of a report to police.

State Anti-SLAPP, SLAPPs in the NewsEvan MascagniMarch 3, 2015SLAPPs in the News, State Anti-SLAPP, MinnesotaComment

Georgia Trial Court Limits the Protection of Georgia's Anti-SLAPP Statute

A Georgia court clarified the protection afforded by the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, noting that a media story not related to a “current governmental investigation” does not fall under the protection of the anti-SLAPP law, even if the story is the basis of a later investigation.

State Anti-SLAPPEvan MascagniFebruary 23, 2015Georgia, State Anti-SLAPP

New York Decision Denying Discovery of Doe Critics Casts Broad Doubts on Libel Suits over Consumer Reviews

From Paul Alan Levy at Public Citizen:

"The Appellate Division in New York has today affirmed the denial of a pre-litigation petition brought by Woodbridge Structured Funding seeking to compel Opinion Corp. to provide identifying information about the authors of two critical consumer reviews on its Pissed Consumer site.

Represented by Ron Coleman, Opinion Corp. invoked the First Amendment’s protection for anonymous speech and theconsensus requirement that would-be plaintiffs be required to present evidence in support of their claims, but the appeals court decided the case instead on the purely state-law ground that the consumer reviews lacked defamatory meaning."

Read more from Paul Levy at Public Citizen here.

State Anti-SLAPPEvan MascagniFebruary 20, 2015Consumer Speech, State Anti-SLAPPComment

Our Blog