First Amendment - Anti-SLAPP - California Constitution - grpub.net

First Amendment

PolitiFact (Jeff Cercone) has the story; I am one of the experts. An excerpt about the facts: After Iran launched a barrage of missiles at Israel on April 13 in its first direct military assault on the country, Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told his X followers why he thought former President Donald Trump should be reelected. "This is the strength we need back in the White House!" Scott wrote April 13, sharing a July 22, 2018, tweet in which Trump threatened Iran's president. Trump later that day shared a screenshot of Scott's post on Truth Social , without further comment. Trump's sharing of Scott's post led several X users to accuse the former president of violating the Logan Act, a 1799 law that bars private citizens from communicating with foreign governments to influence them about disputes with the U.S. My thinking, from my e-mail to the PolitiFact writer (which was largely quoted in the post): [1.] The Logan Act is a…
From today's dissent from denial of rehearing en banc in Book People, Inc. v. Wong, written by Judge James Ho and joined by Jones, Smith, Duncan, and Engelhardt: States have a profound interest in protecting the innocence of children from various adult activities. We don't let children buy alcohol. We don't let them gamble. They're not supposed to smoke. We also shield them from sexually explicit materials. Nothing in the First Amendment prevents states from taking steps to shield children from such content. See, e.g., Ginsberg v. New York (1968) ("The well-being of its children is of course a subject within the State's constitutional power to regulate," "justify[ing] … limitations … upon the availability of sex material to minors"); FCC v. Pacifica Found. (1978) ("Bookstores and motion picture theaters … may be prohibited from making indecent material available to children."); New York v. Ferber (1982)…
US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal from Black Lives Matter organizer being sued for negligence - April 16, 2024 - Caitlin Williams | U. Pittsburgh School of Law, US
The US Supreme Court Monday declined a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Black Lives Matter organizer DeRay Mckesson, effectively allowing him to be sued by a Louisiana police officer for negligence. The case at bar, DeRay Mckesson v. John Doe, centers around a protest that took place in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 9, 2016, after police officers fatally shot Alton Sterling while responding to an anonymous 911 call. According to Mckesson’s petition, the protest was “initially peaceful, although some demonstrators began to throw plastic water bottles in the direction of police.” Soon thereafter, an officer, identified as John Doe, was struck by a “rock-like object” and consequently suffered severe injuries. Though Mckesson did not throw the object, Doe sued Mckesson for the injuries he sustained, reasoning that Mckesson “knew or should have known that the physical contact and riot and demonstration that they staged would…
From yesterday's Ohio Court of Appeals decision in State v. Golga (my students Dice Hagiwara, Jonathan Kaiman, and Brandon Peevy and I had filed an amicus brief in the case, with the invaluable help of local counsel Jeffrey M. Nye [Stagnaro, Saba & Patterson], on behalf of Profs. Stephen Lazarus, Kevin O'Neill, Margaret Tarkington, the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, and myself, urging reversal of the conviction): The City of North Ridgeville … shut off the water supply to Mr. Golga's residence because of nonpayment. He responded by calling the City's Water Department eight times over the course of 26 minutes. During the calls, he screamed, used profanity, and insisted his service be restored. An accounting clerk attempted to aid him but ended several calls because Mr. Golga would not stop screaming and cursing at her. Needing a moment, she allowed another of his calls to go to voicemail. He left the following voicemail message: [Y]ou…
From the Florida Court of Appeal decision Friday in Waite v. State, written by Judge Paige Kilbane, joined by Chief Judge James Edwards and Judge Scott Makar: This case stems from a lengthy dispute between Waite and the Citrus County Sheriff's Office ("CCSO"). Since 2018, Waite quarreled over property boundaries with city employees and CCSO deputies. For the duration of this dispute, Waite would report what he believed to be crimes to various state agencies and the media. As his relationship with the CCSO continued to devolve, Waite started recording conversations with CCSO deputies. In January 2021, Waite called 911 to report what he perceived to be a trespassing incident involving members of the CCSO. Waite insisted that he wanted to file a complaint with internal affairs and that he had an email ready to send. The 911 operator explained that she would have a supervisor give him a call back as she could not provide the information he was requesting. Waite…
Between now and the end of the term, the Supreme Court will issue decisions concerning abortion, guns, administrative law, and Trump, Trump, and more Trump. (In addition to the high-profile cases, for example, today the Court hears oral argument in a case that tests whether the statute used to try January 6 defendants applies to their conduct.) My guess is that a lot of pain is coming our way as we head towards that great artificial deadline the justices created for themselves known as "June."As we are in a bit of a holding pattern with tornado-type turbulence surrounding us, I thought I'd provide a bit of, let's call it legal levity, as we wait for the Court to inflict pain on our people and our country. Here are ten fascinating facts about SCOTUS you might not know.1.     MARBURY V. MADISON: THE POLITICAL TURNS PERSONAL AND THE PERSONAL TURNS  POLITICALMost academics view much of Marbury v. Madison skeptically for many reasons,…

Anti-SLAPP

It took just two years for the idea of an anti-SLAPP statute to go from a grassroots movement in the UK to its realisation in legislation. There are obvious problems with the resulting anti-SLAPP provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (“ECCTA”), and the more general “SLAPPs Bill”, currently at the Committee Stage. Both are overinclusive in their definition of “SLAPPs”, and the burden they place on claimants is likely to lead to problems with access to justice. But what should be done about SLAPPs?  SLAPPs under the existing law It may be thought that recent reforms in defamation law—a favourite action for SLAPP claimants as it immediately puts the defendant on the back foot of having to prove complex factual matters—have effectively addressed the problem of SLAPPs. But SLAPPs need to be addressed early in proceedings before the threat of a costly and protracted trial can have a chilling effect…
Law and Media Round Up – 15 April 2024 - April 15, 2024 - INFORRM
A letter co-ordinated by the Anti-SLAPP Coalition to Justice Secretary Alex Chalk seeks an amendment to the anti-SLAPP bill making its way through Parliament. The letter, signed by editors from publishers like The Times, Guardian and Daily Mail, requests that an objective test be used to determine the intent of the claimant, rather than the subjective test currently proposed. The letter argues a subjective test is “notoriously difficult, time-intensive, expensive and uncertain process that would undermine the effective operation of the protections the law provides”. Read the National Union of Journalists summary here. The Press Gazette has more information here. The Media Law Podcast responds to the letter in its latest Newscast episode. On 5 April 2024 Deputy High Court Judge Richard Spearman KC made an order rejecting all applications made by controversial YouTuber Adil Raja and found that Raja had published statements which were seriously defamatory of Rashid…
A Substantial Basis In Law - April 9, 2024 - Legal Profession Prof
The New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department remanded for calculation of fees and costs of a defamation case dismissed on anti-SLAPP rounds This case presents the issue of what constitutes a "substantial basis in law" under the...
Law and Media Round Up – 8 April 2024 - April 7, 2024 - INFORRM
There have been no media law hearings for the past fortnight. The Easter Legal Term begins on Tuesday 9 April 2024.  It will end on Friday 24 May 2024. On 27 March 2024 Warby LJ refused permission to appeal in the case of Trump v Orbis.  He said that appeal would have “no real prospect of success,” finding that some of the former President’s arguments were contradictory and his appeal attempted to offer new points that he didn’t present before Steyn. On Monday 1 April 2024, the Scottish Hate Crime and Public Order Act came into effect, extending protections to minorities, including transgender people, who are currently not covered by the law against those ‘stirring up hatred’. The Act has been controversial, attracting criticism from Elon Musk, Rishi Sunak and J.K. Rowling, who argued that the law undermines free expression and freedom of belief. Critics say that it will criminalise those who identify as gender critical feminists…
This post was co-written by EFF legal intern Melda Gurakar. Researchers, journalists, and everyone else has a First Amendment right to criticize social media platforms and their content moderation practices without fear of being targeted by retaliatory lawsuits, a federal court recently ruled. The decision by a federal court in California to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Elon Musk’s X against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting online hate speech and misinformation, is a win for greater transparency and accountability of social media companies. The court’s ruling in X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate Ltd. shows that X had no legitimate basis to bring its case in the first place, as the company used the lawsuit to penalize the CCDH for criticizing X and to deter others from doing so. Vexatious cases like these are known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs. These…
Justice Stratton doesn't exactly pay lavish compliments to Loeb & Loeb -- or its attorneys -- in this opinion.A guy (Sadlier) enters into an agreement with a company (Medallion Film) to help the company try to get some funding. The guy promises not to use any of the contacts the company gives him, but the company subsequently learns that the guy (allegedly) got some money for someone else from one of the contacts (BlackRock) the company provided. So the company sends an email to the contact (BlackRock) that says:"Randy hope all is well. We have a fee agreement with Bill Sadle[i]r based upon monies raised from Blackrock thru my introduction to you. What can you do to assist us here in collecting what is due to us. Jesse [Kennedy, of Medallion] will provide a reconciliation. As you know our financial models were provided to you and Blackrock on the P&A. Let us know so we dont have to litigate and can resolve the matter in an amicable fashion. Thx.”The guy…

California Constitution

Since nothing in the federal or state constitutions expressly requires the governor of California to act on commutation petitions within a set timeframe, it's fairly clear that the governor can take as long as s/he wants on these petitions -- including, essentially, forever.But to the degree it was unclear before, today's Court of Appeal opinion expressly so holds.I did learn one thing today, however, that I didn't know previously. Apparently, the California Constitution says that the governor can only grant a pardon or commutation to someone "twice convicted of a felony except on recommendation of the Supreme Court, 4 judges concurring." (Article V, Section 8).I'm quite confident that others knew about this quirk in the California pardon scheme, but I didn't. I was more familiar with the federal system, where the president can do whatever s/he wants.Interesting wrinkle.
States May Be Warming to Green Amendments - March 12, 2024 - Evan George
Last week, New Jersey lawmakers and a variety of stakeholders crammed into a statehouse committee room for a relatively rare legislative hearing. This 2-hour hearing centered on New Jersey’s proposed green amendment, which committee chair Senator Bob Smith described as “a very controversial topic” as he gaveled in the meeting. This green amendment would add a constitutional guarantee to a healthy, clean environment. Advocates have been pushing for such a hearing for years. Dozens of supporters spoke up for the legislation while a handful of corporate lobbyists and executives read statements against the bill. In 2024, these kinds of hearings may take place more and more in statehouses around the country as legislatures warm to the idea of so-called green amendments. At least 10 states so far this year have proposed legislation that would let voters decide in November whether they want the right to a clean, safe environment spelled out in their state…
01 March 2024 See how JMBM’s Global Hospitality Group® can help you.Click here for the latest articles on Hospitality Dispute Resolution. Why Judicial Reference is better than Arbitration for resolving Hotel Management Agreements & Hotel Franchise Agreements. Advanced analysis of Judicial Reference features. Hotel Management Agreements & Franchise Agreements by Mark S. Adams, Hotel Dispute LawyerPartner & Senior Member JMBM’s Global Hospitality Group®   In prior articles, we have looked at the options available to parties in resolving hotel industry disputes. See, Critical considerations for hospitality litigation, arbitration & alternate dispute resolution clauses in hotel contracts. See also, Is Judicial Reference better than Arbitration to resolve Hotel Contract disputes? The basics of Judicial Reference.  The authority for Judicial Reference in California comes from two sources. The first is the California Constitution which…
In Discovery Builders, Inc. v. City of Oakland (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 799, the First District Court of Appeal held an agreement between a developer and the City of Oakland was unenforceable to the extent it prevented the city from imposing new impact fees in the future. The court reasoned such a provision constituted an impermissible contracting away of the city’s police power. Between 2004 and 2005, the city approved a vesting tentative map and final tract maps for a 400-unit housing project. The city’s approval required that the developer satisfy various terms and mitigate various environmental impacts. In 2005, the city and developer entered into a separate agreement (“2005 Agreement”), which set the terms by which the developer would compensate the city for employee services and outside consultants required to satisfy the agreed-upon terms and mitigation requirements. Development of the project began soon thereafter. In 2016, as development was…
Construction accidents in CA refer to mishaps on construction sites leading to harm. Construction site accidents occur during construction operations involving poor safety precautions, equipment malfunction, human mistakes, or carelessness. Identifying and addressing these issues can prevent Construction Site Injuries. Also, the state legislation has developed a few stunning workers’ rights that protect them from several losses involving both bodily and financial. Reach out to a construction accident law firm Gaylord & Nantais promptly when faced with a Construction Site Injury in CA. A skilled construction accident injury lawyer can assess your case, ensuring timely action and optimal legal guidance. An overview of the construction site safety features described in the California constitution. The California constitution emphasizes construction site safety through stringent regulations and provisions. It mandates a safe work environment, requiring…
Last year, I commented on the likely unconstitutionality of two California laws compelling forced speech: The California legislature has of late adopted the tactic of driving behavior by compelling speech.  SB 253 (Wiener), for example, compels disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions and SB 261 (Stern) requires disclosure of climate-related financial risks.  Both of these requirements clearly compel speech arguably in contravention of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 61 (2006) ("Some of this Court's leading First Amendment precedents have established the principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say."). I had previously noted that SB 253 was very similar to an earlier bill that did not make it into law. Yesterday, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and several…