The Press, Publishers & Broadcasters and the Citizen Participation Act (H.R. 4364)
 |
 |
|
Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined. - Judge J. Nicholas Colabella, writing about SLAPPs
Journalists, newspapers, reporters and broadcasters have all been the victim of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. In fact, members of the media are particularly vulnerable to such suits, as they are often the ones bringing to light information that some would rather see kept quiet.
The best protection against SLAPPs is a method to quickly dismiss suits that arise from protected speech – and the ability to recover the fees and costs incurred in defending against the meritless suit. About half the states have enacted legislation to protect against SLAPPs, but these vary in their strength and breadth. Moreover, there is no federal anti-SLAPP protection. This is why federal anti-SLAPP legislation is needed now – it would protect against SLAPPs in all states and at the federal level.
SLAPPs Against the News
Henry v. Lake Charles American Press LLC, et. al., No. 08-30201 (Apr. 14, 2009)
• In Louisiana in 2009, the Lake Charles American Press was able to invoke the state’s anti-SLAPP law to dismiss a suit brought against it by a jet company, after the newspaper ran a series of reports that the company had sold contaminated fuel to the military.
• In November of 2008, a Texas developer sued the author of a book about an eminent domain development agreement the developer had signed. In addition to naming the book’s author and publisher, a book reviewer and the newspaper that published the book review, the suit also named Law Professor Richard Epstein, who wrote a brief review on the book jacket, lauding the book as a “page turner.” The suit sought monetary damages and a permanent injunction on further printing or distribution of the book. In March 2009, Epstein was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Royall v. Wright Gore, Jr., et. al., No. 29996 (2009); Royall v. Main, et. al., No. DC-08-13480-B (2009). Also see George Will's August 20, 2009 op-ed, Reason Magazine's article, and Institute for Justice's excellent piece on on the suit, which it helped defend.
KinderUSA v. The Washington Institute of Near East Policy, Matthew Levitt, and Yale University Press, Case No. BC370155 (filed Apr. 26, 2007).
• In April 2007, KinderUSA demanded that Yale University Press redact statements in a book it had published by author Dr. Matthew Levitt, which describes KinderUSA as a charitable front for terror financing. Yale Press refused to redact the statements, and KinderUSA brought suit against Yale Press, Levitt and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, alleging $500,000 in damages. Levitt and Yale Press took advantage of California’s Anti-SLAPP statute to bring a special motion to dismiss the suit, arguing that KinderUSA’s suit was a disguised attempt at wrongfully intimidating them into silence. Shortly after the anti-SLAPP motion was filed, KinderUSA dropped their lawsuit, and agreed not to bring any other legal challenges to the book, either in the US or abroad. In exchange, Levitt and Yale Press dropped their motion for fees under the anti-SLAPP law.
Drake v. Leno, 34 Med. L. Rptr. 2510 (2006)
• In 2006, Jay Leno, NBC and others were sued for defamation by a woman claiming defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on statements he made in the show. NBC took advantage of California’s anti-SLAPP motion to have the case dismissed, and fees and costs awarded, with the court holding that no reasonable person could understand Leno’s statements to be factual or defamatory. See Leno's anti-SLAPP motion here.
Jane Doe v. Home Box Office, Inc., et al. SC092739 (Apr. 21, 2009)
• Also in 2006, a woman brought suit against Sacha Baron Cohen, Channel 4 Television network, and HBO’s Da Ali G Show, claiming that Cohen, while playing the role of “Ali G”, libeled her by name during a spoof interview with historian Gore Vidal. In dismissing the case in 2009, the court held that “no reasonable person could consider the statements made by Ali G on the program to be factual,” or therefore defamatory. It also held that the plaintiff’s signed release constituted separate and independent grounds for dismissal. Additional information here.
Sipple v. Foundation for National Progress, 71 Cal.App.4th 226 (1999)
In 1997, political consultant Donald Sipple sued Mother Jones for an article it published that centered on allegations his first two wives had made in the course of a custody dispute that Sipple had physically and verbally abused them. Sipple brought suit on claims of libel, intentional interference with contract, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Mother Jones took advantage of the California Anti-SLAPP law, and the trial court dismissed the case, finding that the subject matter was a matter of public interest, and about a government proceeding (the custody dispute) and so the anti-SLAPP law applied. The court further found that Sipple, a public figure, had failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the question of whether the article had been published with malice. Sipple appealed the denial, arguing that the issue of wife beating is not one public interest. The appeals court rejected that argument, and affirmed the denial. The RFCP has a summary of the case here.
Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 37 Cal. App. 4th 855 (1995)
• In 1995, the San Francisco Chronicle company invoked California’s anti-SLAPP law to dismiss a lawsuit brought against it and three reporters who had documented a dispute between a local university and the neighboring residents.
Peeler v. Baylor University, No. 10-08-00157-CV (Tex. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2009)
• In 1993, James Peeler, a cameraman for a local news agency, went to the Branch Dividian Ranch run by David Koresh to film the planned Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) raid his station had been alerted to. He got lost, and ran into a taxi driver, with whom he spoke, and who turned out to be the brother of David Koresh. Peeler is the widely acknowledged source of Koresh’s knowledge of the impending raid. Ten years later, student journalists at Baylor University wrote two articles about the events at Waco, and mentioned Peeler in one of the articles. Peeler sued the student newspaper and university for defamation. The trial court dismissed the suit on summary judgment, which the appellate court upheld. Texas has no anti-SLAPP law, so Baylor was unable to recover the expenses incurred in litigating the lawsuit.
Auvil v. CBS "60 Minutes," 67 F.3d 816 (1994) (Opinion at Food Speak First Amendment Coalition)
• In the early 1990s, disgruntled apple growers sued 60 Minutes and its parent companies, alleging more than $200 million in damages, following a story 60 Minutes ran about the harmful effects of the chemical alar, used in apple products. After five years of litigation, the suit was dismissed because apple growers could not point to any false statements in the broadcast.
Please note: Some of the information and commentary contained in this listing are based on court filings and other informational sources that may contain unproven allegations made by the parties. The truthfulness and accuracy of such information may be in dispute.