The bill is particularly aimed at combating what are known as SLAPPs, or strategic law suits against public participation.
Such suits - typically involving large claims of money for defamation or damage to reputation - are common in cases where citizens or non-governmental organizations speak out against the environmental impact of company operations or development plans.
H/T
Lots of back and forth in the article on how or whether the legislation will work, but you would figure that if 25 states can implement something along these lines, it is at least possible.
Incidentally, Connie/Ed are in court today for the hearing on their application for leave to appeal the order against them requiring that reveal the anonymous posters in the Warman case (they need leave from the court before they can appeal the order). Note: Sorry about the previous sentence.
In any case, this post from earlier this morning:
RedDog wrote:
Semi-related: but where is the legal funding issue? There had been talk of X number of people pitching in to carry a line of credit. Where and when to be so directed?
Ed Kennedy responded:
You will get a PM [private message] on that now.
...suggests that FreeD's method of funding their case is still a work in progress.
can you please link the pic of the posts to a bigger one? Thanks
ReplyDeleteGene,
ReplyDeleteI reproduced the text in question and a link, until such time as I can figure out how to do what you're suggesting.
FreeD really is going for martyr status, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteAnd all because it could not support standards based on conservative principles. What a tragedy.
No worries BCL, that actually works a lot better. I dont have to see a bigger version of that George Strait avatar. :)
ReplyDeleteOn the main, topic: although discouraging SLAPP suits is welcome, I can't help but think that applying more laws to curtail litigiousness is a dead-end. Lawyers love nothing more than legal complexity.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good start but more changes to the scope of our libel laws is needed. Making blatantly, and objectively false statements about people is one thing but some of the decisions I've read have imposed liability for some pretty subjective yet fair statements.
ReplyDelete