“Finding out that someone has issued a subpoena to your internet service provider seeking information about you is scary.  But do not despair!  This post will give you some information about what this means and what you can do when it happens.  You might even be able to “quash” or defeat the subpoena and prevent your internet service provider from giving out your personal information.”

Read the full post here: http://www.casp.net/uncategorized/what-to-do-when-your-internet-service-provider-tells-you-your-information-has-been-subpoenaed/

“…Texas citizens are seeing a direct benefit from the passage of the law. Prather assembled a coalition of supporters to obtain the unanimous passage of Texas’ anti-SLAPP law in the first half of 2011 and the law became effective for any case filed after June 17, 2011. The law allows an early motion to dismiss to be filed in any suit filed based on the defendant’s exercise of his or her First Amendment rights. Discovery is typically stayed while the motion is pending and an award of attorneys’ fees is mandatory for a successful movant.”

Read more here: http://www.sdma.com/News/detail.aspx?news=1398

According to court papers filed this week in D.C. federal court, the defendants say, “With this lawsuit — his second — Dean seeks to move one step closer in his self-described mission to stop the ‘radical gay agenda.’ The law does not permit him to use the judicial process in this fashion.”

Maddow’s case shows the need for federal anti-SLAPP legislation. Dean originally filed his complaint in DC Superior Court but then dismissed it and filed a “virtually identical” complaint in federal court to avoid the DC anti-SLAPP law. Federal anti-SLAPP legislation would close this loophole and and would prevent SLAPP filers from using these tactics to circumvent the protections of the DC anti-SLAPP ordinance.

Read more on this case and view the anti-SLAPP motion here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/rachel-maddow-lawsuit-bradlee-dean-msnbc-314234

“American Heritage Capital, LP v. Dinah Gonzalez and Alan Gonzalez, No. DC-11-13741-C (Texas District Court April 13, 2012). The amended complaint. The defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion.

This may be the first application of Texas’ new anti-SLAPP law to Internet postings. It’s a fine example why Texas enacted the law in the first place. And it’s a good preview of the benefits we could get from federal anti-SLAPP protection.”

Read the full post here: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/04/texas_ruling_sh.htm

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler rejected CNN’s proposed application of the anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §425.16(b)(1). CNN’s decision not to caption the videos had no direct link to its exercise of its First Amendment rights: at that point in the process, the newsgathering and reporting had already occurred, and the plaintiffs merely wanted to access the content, the court said.

The case is more akin to Doe v. Gangland Productions Inc., 802 F.Supp.2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2011), than to CNN-cited cases against media organizations that dealt directly with their newsgathering and reporting, the court concluded. The Gangland court held that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply to a scenario involving a television producer that promised a gang member that it would conceal his identity but nonetheless broadcast his face and nickname.

Like Gangland, the issue here–captioning–is not part of the underlying protected speech, the court said.

Read the full article from Bloomberg BNA here: http://www.bna.com/challenge-cnns-decision-n12884908856/

That’s according to the U.S. District Court in Seattle, which ruled last week that the website, with its health and legal directory and question and answer forum, is protected under Washington state’s anti-SLAPP law.

Josh King, PPP Board member and attorney at Avvo said the case “is really a victory for First Amendment rights in Washington.”

Read the full article from Business Journal here: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2012/04/02/seattle-lawyer-and-doctor-rating-site.html?page=all

Mr. Wakefield chose to file his defamation suit in Texas (his home state). This presented him immediately with two hurdles. First he has to show that the court has jurisdiction over primarily UK entities. Second he faced the possibility of an anti-SLAPP motion. SLAPP stands for “Strategic lawsuit against public participation“.

Read the full post here - http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/03/bmj-brian-deer-file-anti-slapp-suit-against-andrew-wakefield/

USDA rural development staffer Shirley Sherrod filed the lawsuit against Breitbart and Breitbart aide Larry O’Connor last February over the pair’s role in publicizing a video of a Sherrod speech which appeared to suggest the African-American Agriculture Department official was biased against white people. The publicity led to Sherrod’s forced resignation, apparently with the White House’s approval.

While the clips and analysis posted at Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com seemed to indicate that Sherrod was racist, the full video of of Sherrod’s speech included her indicating she had learned a lesson from her earlier predispositions and had come to reject racial stereotyping.

Breitbart and O’Connor asked that the lawsuit be dismissed under an anti-SLAPP law the District of Columbia passed in 2010. Anti-SLAPP laws (the acronym stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) provide for quick dismissal of lawsuits arising from matters of public debate or controversy. However, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon refused to dismiss the case. He noted (in a statement posted here) that the anti-SLAPP law didn’t take effect until March 2011, the month after Sherrod’s suit was filed.”

Read the full post from Josh Gerstein at Politico here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/03/shirley-sherrods-suit-against-andrew-breitbart-likely-116078.html

Read more from RCFP here: http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/briefs-comments/testimony-regarding-maryland-anti-slapp-bill

This aggressive tactic not only chills otherwise protected free speech, but in many states, also risks triggering liability under “anti-SLAPP” statutes. Anti-SLAPP laws prevent strategic defamation lawsuits—frequently filed by plaintiffs with deep pockets—that have little to no chance of winning, yet are aimed at pressuring the target into settling for fear of expensive litigation.”

Read full post here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/billionaires-bogus-legal-threats-against-bloggers-threaten-free-speech