Greenwald goes on to discuss SLAPPs generally and the work of the Public Participation Project:

“Threatening journalists and bloggers with baseless lawsuits and trying to suppress free debate is a recognized menace. Close to 30 states in the U.S. have adopted so-called anti-SLAPP statutes — designed to punish “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPP). Those statutes create causes of action against those who abuse the legal system not to vindicate legal rights, but to intimidate and silence critics. Organizations such as The Public Participation Project now exist exclusively to defend those victimized by SLAPP suits or the threat of them. Those anti-SLAPP statutes have repeatedly been used to defeat abusive lawsuits brought to stifle legitimate speech by media outlets and bloggers. As the Project explains: ”such lawsuits turn the justice system into a weapon, and have a serious chilling effect on the free speech that is so vital to the public interest. The lawsuits also cost media organizations thousands of dollars. Even a meritless suit can drag on for months – sometimes even years – and tactics such as aggressive discovery can pile on the costs.” And lawyers — whether working in-house for a corporation or a private law firm — have an independent duty not to threaten frivolous lawsuits for improper ends (Melaleuca did not respond to a message left yesterday for its General Counsel, Ryan Nelson, seeking comment for this article).”

Read the full article here: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/billionaire_romney_donor_uses_threats_to_silence_critics/singleton/

“The case involved a lawyer, Thomas Howard Clarke, Jr., who recorded and posted a Youtube video clip in which he spoke about an herbal supplement created by Brain Research Labs, LLC. Although the clip was intended to solicit clients to join a class action lawsuit against the company, Clarke also spoke more generally, condemning both the herbal supplement industry as a whole and BRL in particular for making various false claims about their products, which Clarke went on to state, often cause injury and even death.”

Read the full post here: http://www.casp.net/posting-on-the-internet/2649/

Read more from SLAPPed In Texas here: http://slappedintexas.com/2012/02/08/2011-a-good-year-for-texas-anti-slapp/

In an order issued yesterday afternoon, the three-judge appellate panel put the case on hold and asked Leon to provide a “statement of reasons” explaining his ruling.”

Read more from the Blog of Legal Times here: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/02/dc-circuit-wants-answers-from-trial-judge-on-denial-of-anti-slapp-motion.html

The company’s defamation claims against Davis will go forward. The U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled Thursday against the motion to dismiss by Davis.

3M’s law firm, Bickel and Brewer, said that the federal court, in a matter of first impression, rejected Davis’ attempt to use the District of Columbia’s Anti-SLAPP Act (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) in federal court. Davis and his attorneys had argued that 3M’s defamation claim lacked merit. They filed a motion on Oct. 6 seeking to have the case dismissed under the anti-SLAPP Act.”

This case shows why federal anti-SLAPP legislation is needed. Plaintiffs can avoid state anti-SLAPP laws by filing a federal claim in federal court, or even (as it appears in this case), by filing a state claim (defamation) in federal court. Federal anti-SLAPP legislation would protect Americans in all states and at the federal level from SLAPPs.

Read more about the case from Legal Newsline here: http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/235111-davis-motion-to-dismiss-3m-defamation-suit-denied

“It’s the medium, not the message, that did in Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley partner Thomas Clarke Jr., two weeks ago.

By posting on YouTube a video in which he solicited plaintiffs for a class action, the California 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that he’d opened himself up to a defamation suit and can’t use the state’s anti-SLAPP law to ward it off.

The 1st District panel expressed some sympathy with the statements Clarke made in the video, in which he reached out to class members for a suit against the maker of a dietary supplement. But, in finding the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits, and that the litigation and common interest privileges don’t apply, the court took issue with his use of the internet.

“The manner in which Clarke disseminated [his call for plaintiffs], i.e., by making it available to the general public on the Internet, provides additional support, in accord with California case law, for the conclusion we reach here,” wrote Justice Martin Jenkins in the unpublished opinion.

The decision raises questions about the limits of the litigation privilege, and it also highlights some hot-button questions on the application of California’s anti-SLAPP law that remain unresolved, say appellate specialists who keenly track developments in that law.

Kerr & Wagstaffe partner James Wagstaffe, who represents Clarke and the firm, said they’re “disappointed” that the court didn’t apply long-held privileges for lawyers soliciting clients.

“Those communications have long been held to be part of the litigation privilege,” Wagstaffe said. “The only difference here was the communication took place on YouTube rather than in a meeting. In our view, that raises a cutting-edge issue.”

Supporters of a broad interpretation of the anti-SLAPP statute — which was designed to protect free speech and public participation — say the opinion exemplifies how plaintiffs are capitalizing on the confusion in the courts of appeal to make it harder for defamation defendants to block suits over protected activities by using the anti-SLAPP statute.

“It’s becoming more and more common for plaintiffs lawyers to try to combine different allegations together in a way that’s specifically designed to insulate a complaint from an anti-SLAPP motion,” said Horvitz & Levy partner Jeremy Rosen, who’s not involved in the case but has handled anti-SLAPP appeals.”

Read the rest of the article from Law.com here: http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202540890419&Lawyer_Sued_Over_YouTube_Video_Cant_Fight_Back_With_AntiSLAPP_Law&slreturn=1

“In a lawsuit between a big corporation and a Twiggs County activist, one thing seems clear: Someone’s lying about who’s lying.

The lawsuit by Wolf Creek Landfill LLC contends that activist Cecil Fountain Jr. lied about whether the company was itself lying. Fountain’s legal response claims that the landfill — backed by Advanced Disposal Services Inc. — is suing him just to get him to shut up. Fountain earlier fought a planned expansion of the landfill.

This week, a planned court hearing on Fountain’s motion to dismiss the suit was continued for another day. Fountain is asking a Twiggs County Superior Court judge to toss the case, saying it’s a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.”

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/01/28/1882634/activist-lawsuit-aims-to-silence.html#storylink=cpy

“Last week, Jay Leno joked on his television show that the Golden Temple of Armritsar in India, a holy site to the Sikh religion, was the summer home of wealthy presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The joke caused a bit of an uproar, with many charging Leno with making an insensitive and derogatory jab at the Sikh community. Now, Leno and NBC have been sued for defamation by a Bakersfield-area Sikh man, Dr. Randeep Dhillon and his organization, Bol Punjabi All Regions Community Organization, for making the joke. (http://www.eonline.com/news/jay_leno_sued_by_sikh_man_over_mitt/289165.)

The lawsuit has some fairly obvious problems. (Complaint here: http://www.eonline.com/static/news/pdf/JayLenoSikhsuit.pdf.) It is not clear why the statement is defamatory: it obviously was not meant by the speaker to be taken as a statement of fact.”

Read Metheny’s full analysis of the case here: http://www.casp.net/uncategorized/jay-leno-slapped/

“Jay Leno thought he was poking gentle fun at the lifestyles of rich and famous Republican presidential candidates — Mitt Romney in particular. But last Thursday when Leno’s slide show came to a location cited as Mitt Romney’s summer home — in reality an image of the Sikh holy shrine Golden Temple in Amritsar, India — it sparked a diplomatic incident. And now, a lawsuit charging Leno and NBC with libel.

Dr. Randeep Dhillon of Bakersfield filed the suit today in Los Angeles Superior Court. On behalf of himself and Bol Jay Leno Mitt Romney JokePunjabi All Regions Community Organization, the suit charges that the broadcast was libelous on its face and exposed Sikhs and their religion to hatred, contempt and ridicule because it portrayed the holiest place in the Sikh religion as a vacation resort owned by a non-Sikh. The suit charges that Leno’s use of the photo of the temple was intentional, deliberately false and “hurt the sentiments of all Sikh people in addition to those of the plaintiff.” The suit seeks general, special and punitive damages as well as court costs. It appears that video of the segment in question has been removed from NBC’s website.”

Read more from Deadline Hollywood here: http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/jay-leno-nbc-sued-over-mitt-romney-joke/

In the case, a high school coach sued for defamation against the defendants after they began “a campaign to oust him as the head basketball coach. In the process of their campaign, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants defamed him. The Appellate Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s defamation case and ordered that the Plaintiff  pay part of the Defendant’s attorneys’ fees under the Anti-SLAPP lawsuit.”

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that ”It is clear from the express language of the [Anti-SLAPP] Act that it was not intended to protect those who commit tortious acts and then seek refuge in the immunity conferred by the statute.” The Court further held that the statute is not a privilege for those that defame another, even if petitioning for government action.

Read the full opinion from the court at CronauerLaw Blog at: http://www.cronauerlaw.com/blog/?p=78