"Poulson's reporting is just the kind of activity that the state's anti-SLAPP law was designed to protect: truthful speech about a matter of public interest. The felony domestic violence arrest of the CEO of a controversial surveillance company with U.S. military contracts is undoubtedly a matter of public interest. As we explained to the court, "the public has a clear interest in knowing about the people their government is doing business with.""
"The journalist, Jack Poulson, reported on Maury Blackman's arrest for felony domestic violence after receiving a copy of the arrest report from a confidential source. Blackman didn't like that. So, he sued Poulson-along with Substack, Amazon Web Services, and Poulson's non-profit, Tech Inquiry-to try and force Poulson to take his articles down from the internet. Fortunately, the trial court saw this case for what it was: a classic SLAPP, or a strategic lawsuit against public participation."
EFF asked a California appeals court to uphold a lower court decision that struck a tech CEO's lawsuit against a journalist who reported the CEO's felony domestic violence arrest. Journalist Jack Poulson obtained a copy of the arrest report from a confidential source and published reporting. CEO Maury Blackman sued Poulson, Substack, Amazon Web Services, and Tech Inquiry seeking to remove the articles. The trial court dismissed the complaint under California's anti‑SLAPP statute. Poulson's reporting constitutes truthful speech about a matter of public interest, and the First Amendment protects publication of the incident report. The trial found Blackman's claims meritless and barred by the First Amendment.
Read at Electronic Frontier Foundation
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]