- Quickdraw McLaw
- 22 Comments
- 691 Views
In case you haven’t heard yet, Nevada’s strongest-in-the-nation anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) law is in danger of being gutted. SB444 is the bill that intends to do the deed and it is supported by gaming interests (read: Steve Wynn). In fact, here is an RJ article on what Steve Wynn stands to gain from SB444 being enacted. Here is what First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza has to say about why we don’t want this law weakened.
We won’t go into all the details here, but Nevada’s current Anti-SLAPP law is a good thing. It is vital to protecting freedom of speech in Nevada and preventing frivolous lawsuits. It is one of the laws that helps make it possible for this blog to be in existence without being subject to pointless litigation. As lawyers this should be pretty clear to all of you. If it isn’t, please take a moment to read up on it.
If you’d like to share your knowledge and/or opinion with your legislators:
Explain how SB444 guts the Anti-SLAPP law. It seems to strengthen it.
It narrows the definition of what is an issue of public concern.
Not really. It just changes the wording from "interest" to "concern" and still means any topic that concerns the general public. Given the intent of the Anti-SLAPP law, judges are still going to read it broadly.
It doesn't strengthen it. It doesn't take much effort to see how this isn't the case. One of the original bills proponents has taken the time to write out why (linked in the above post).
Or, you can read the bill itself:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/78th2015/Bills/SB/SB444_R1.pdf
"It seems to strengthen it" – you might be given that impression if you read only the pre-amble to it, but if you read the whole bill, you will see that it fully guts it.
It doesn't change "interest" to "concern", "concern" is in both the current law and the bill, it eliminates "interest", and then narrowly defines concern. What it's trying to do is make the definition of "public concern" track the language of SCOTUS cases on speech in public employment. The goal is to get the very narrow class of speech that public employees can say in the context (though not pursuant to) of their public employment to be the only speech protected by the anti-SLAPP law. This is a class of speech so narrow, SCOTUS and several Circuit Courts have repeatedly and forcefully said it should not be applied outside the very specific situation of a public employee speaking in the context of their employment, a public employee speaking outside the context of their employment receives the normal, broader protections.
Where did you get the idea that all that was done was change "interest" to "concern", and that this isn't very material? You certainly can't read the bill and come to that conclusion, and while Wynn's expert misleadingly implies that's what's happening in the senate hearing on SB444: http://nvleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=14&clip_id=4175 , even he states clearly that the bill is designed to narrow the class of speech that is protected. He also mentions a number the myriad of other changes the bill would make to the current law, he's often misleading about them, but he still mentions them. They include, among other things, reducing the time defendants have to file, increasing the time plaintiffs have to oppose, reducing the evidenciary burden the plaintiff must meet to overcome the motion (the Wynn expert falsely states what the standard is under the current statute several times), removing the section that makes this a substantive right (thus ensuring it wont end up in federal court or be applied in cases in other jurisdictions when Nevada substantive law is applied), removing the discretion of the judge to make an award in excess of costs to successful movants, removing the private right of action for punitive damages for successful movants, and removing the good faith qualifier. All of that and more are changes that are in the bill, and many were discussed even during the misleading testimony in the senate. What source is telling you that stuff isn't there?
Steve Wynn is a billionaire. Our nation is ruled by an elite cadre of billionaires, including Steve Wynn. We are plebians and our democracy is illusory. One of our overlords has spoken and whether we like it or not, we must live with his will. Also, it's pretty pathetic not one Senator was willing to put their name on his piece of sh!t bill, the "sponsor" is "Senate Judiciary Committee." You can bet that wen confronted, the members of that committee will each individually deny any personal involvement. Pussies.
And yet Every. Single. Senator. voted for it. Morons.
Contact your representative in the Assembly and urge them to vote against it. Because if you don't, it becomes possible for the Adam Kutners of the world to sue bloggers without fear of substantial monetary penalties (the new bill rips the real teeth out of the Anti-SLAPP bill, so that even if you can get over the narrow definition, the plaintiff is only stuck with attorneys fees – assuming the defendant could afford to pay the attorney for the time it took to defend this thing through the byzantine new procedures.)
If you publish a falsity you need to be held accountable……..no hiding behind the SLAPP law. Opinion is one thing but making something up because you have another agenda is a different story.
There's no "hiding" behind the Anti-SLAPP law for knowingly publishing a defamatory statement. If someone posted a statement that " rapes babies and paid off judge to make the charges go away THIS IS NOT A JOKE," they would have zero chance of prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion. The law as it currently stands, albeit with a flawed standard of review for the court, protects those people who get sued for expressing opinion or telling the embarrassing truth. The removal of the stinger statutory award and change to the definition of what is a matter of public concern would truly gut the protection of this law.
Oops. In the defamatory statement example, I used brackets for general placeholders. Damn HTML code. should have read "NAME rapes babies and paid off judge NAME…"
Anti-SLAPP does not protect someone who publishes a falsity. The ideal scenario it would protect is where a blogger posts truthful things about a subject that the subject does not like, and the subject files a complaint in an attempt to get the blogger to stop posting. The idea is that it will be overly burdensome for the blogger to challenge the lawsuit, either monetarily or time-wise, and the blogger will just stop.
As 9:25 AM pointed out, if that same blogger did post a false statement, he or she would not prevail on the anti-SLAPP motion. Additionally, if the blogger filed the anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiff could ask for the $10,000 penalty from the blogger for filing the anti-SLAPP motion.
Kind of like this? Adam Kutner, Plaintiff(s) vs. John Doe, Defendant(s): Case No. A-13-688898-C.
Pretty much exactly that. Blogger's attorney's fees – $40k. BTW, just for the edification of the commentariat – if you use the word "uber" or "douchebag," Kutner will assume you are Legal Eagle of WWL.
Note to judicial law clerks reviewing this comment which will likely be attached as a exhibit to Kutner's future filings: I am not Legal Eagle. Fuck you, Kutner.
Did the blog take a break on HUMP DAY.
Did Kutner sue a blogger from this blog?
Not this blog, no. He sued anyone and everyone connected with Wild Wild Law, a now-defunct legal blog (except for the comments, which are still active). The uber douchebag probably even sued me as a Doe Defendant, since I commented there a time or two. -Not Legal Eagle, fuck you, Kutner.
What caused Wild Wild Law blog to shut down. Was it fall out from the lawsuit? I never heard why it closed. If anyone knows, please share.
This is a big deal! It is very fashionable to punish freedom of speech these days. We need to resist the consistent pressure in schools, colleges and the web to gag the masses. The cherished American ideal of freedom of thought is meaningless without freedom of speech! Stop Big Business and Big Bolsheviks from bulling us into submission.
Oh, and fuck you Adam Kutner. And double fuck you to Michael Roberson.
yeah, go fuck yerself, Kutner, you douchebag!
Feel free to speak your mind, but please keep it work-appropriate and slander-free. Be kind, please don't jeopardize this blog.
Anyone see Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2? I was planning to check it out this weekend. Thanks.
Instead of just contacting our representative regarding the bill, why don't we start a petition?