First Amendment - Anti-SLAPP - California Constitution - grpub.net
First Amendment
The article is here; the Introduction: On January 6, 2021, with the encouragement of President Donald Trump, a motley crew of "Stop the Steal" zealots stormed the U.S. Capitol, destroying lives and property. In response, Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook took the unprecedented step of deplatforming a freely elected U.S. president. Twitter permanently suspended Trump's account, Google's YouTube shut him down indefinitely, and Facebook closed his account but referred its decision to Facebook's newly assembled Global Oversight Board for review. Yet two years later, in January 2023, Twitter's new owner Elon Musk reinstated Trump's Twitter account, and Facebook announced the lifting of Trump's ban, without any public explanation. There was no public outcry. At the time of Trump's social media silencing, there had been considerable public debate over whether such dramatic action had been warranted. For liberal elites, it had happened far too…
From today's Order Vacating in Part and Clarifying Order of Mar. 13, 2024 (responding to a motion filed Friday on my behalf by Marc Randazza and Kylie Werk of the Randazza Legal Group, PLLC): ORDER VACATING IN PART AND CLARIFYING ORDER OF MARCH 13, 2024 This action came before the Court on NON-PARTY EUGENE VOLOKH'S MOTION [D.E. 48] TO INTERVENE AND FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER. The Motion is granted. The order docketed March 13, 2024 is hereby vacated to the extent it can be read or interpreted to apply to anyone other than the parties to this action. It is expressly vacated to the extent it purports to order Mr. Volokh to take any action—or to refrain from taking any action. The order shall be interpreted to only apply to Defendant Arnold Daoud, or anyone acting at his direction. The order does not apply to anyone who is not a party to this action; to be clear, this includes any non-party who has or may write about this action or the filings docketed in this…
The order: As readers may recall, I've written about a recent California court order that restricted online criticism of one Sarrita Adams. Adams runs Science On Trial, Inc., which "provides forensic consultation services across the United States and the United Kingdom." Adams drew public attention by publicly criticizing the evidence in the 2023 English trial of nurse Lucy Letby, who was convicted of murdering seven infants. Her claims were mentioned in, among other publications, The Times (London), the New York Post, and most recently The New Yorker. Adams' criticism, however, itself drew criticism, including on Reddit's r/scienceontrial ("This community exists to fact check claims about Science on Trial, its creator Sarrita Adams, and various statements that can be credited to her."). The main poster there has been the pseudonymous Reddit user MrJusticeGossipGirl, apparently a reference to Mr. Justice Goss, the judge in the Letby trial. The…
Kelly Hyman is a lawyer, frequent FoxNews.com contributor, and a media and Twitter commentator in this year's presidential campaign. She had also (in Hyman v. Daoud) sued her father, a disgraced former Miami Beach mayor, over a real estate transaction. And, for several years, there have been attempts to vanish from the Internet various materials related to that dispute—including attempts to vanish news stories about it, including my own articles. On Oct. 17, I got an e-mail related to the latest such attempt: [Subject] Request for Link Removal as per Court Order Hello, I am reaching out to request the removal of the following link from your website, as per a court order: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/24/an-odd-response-from-one-of-the-lawyers-in-the-kelly-hyman-v-alex-daoud-case/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/14/attempt-to-vanish-my-article-about-attempt-to-vanish-my-article-about-attempt-to-vanish-other-articles/ I've attached a copy of the court order…
Early last week, Professors Neil Buchanan, Laurence Tribe, and I submitted a proposed op-ed to the Washington Post. The Post's editors accepted the op-ed and originally scheduled it to run last Friday morning but then decided to delay its publication until today, because on Friday it would have competed with too many other op-eds. That struck us as sensible, so we acquiesced in the delay, which would have been fine were it not for its owner's subsequent craven decision not to endorse a candidate in the presidential election, thereby breaking with a tradition it has almost always followed over the last five decades.Buchanan, Tribe, and I join the chorus of criticism that is rightly raining down on Jeff Bezos for his anticipatory capitulation to the potentially looming dictatorship of Donald Trump. Democracy dies in cowardice.My co-authors and I considered pulling our op-ed but decided not to do so for two main reasons: first, the editors who agreed to run (and…
From The Looking Glass One thing I've noticed is that First Amendment adherents can be divided into two groups insofar as Church and State are concerned. One group, the "freedom from religion" side, invariably views any legal protection or accommodation...
Anti-SLAPP
From Tallman v. Miller, decided yesterday by Judge Michael Simon (D. Or.): Tallman … lives in the city of Boardman, Oregon, in Morrow County. He owns and operates a coffee shop in Boardman called, "The Farmer's Cup." In November 2020, Tallman ran for election for the office of Mayor of Boardman but did not win. In May 2021, Tallman ran for election for a seat on the Port of Morrow Board of Commissioners but did not win. In November 2022, Tallman ran for election for a seat on the Boardman City Council but did not win. In May 2023, Tallman again ran for election for a seat on the Port of Morrow Board of Commissioners but did not win. Miller … grew up in Boardman. In approximately April 2019, she began working at The Farmer's Cup, as a server. She was 16 years old. Tallman hired Miller and was her supervisor. Shortly after she began working for Tallman, Miller "experienced what [she] now know[s] to be highly inappropriate behaviors from a…
This is a major ruling validating the legitimacy of competitive keyword advertising, which occurs when an advertiser purchases and displays ads triggered in response to third-party trademarks. Recently, the “Second Circuit Tells Trademark Owners to Stop Suing Over Competitive Keyword Advertising.” Now, the Ninth Circuit similarly urges trademark owners to quit it. Will they get the message? * * * Background Lerner and Rowe is an Arizona law firm. It has spent $100M on advertising. Brown Engstrand is a start-up rival law firm (operating under the brand “Accident Law Group”). The rival bought competitive keyword ads (the court uses the term “conquesting,” which I objected to here) but didn’t include the third-party trademark in the ad copy. Here’s an example: Competitive keyword advertising by law firms has been a source of trouble for years. I wrote a whole paper just about that in 2016–we’re still discussing it 8…
Today's advance release tort law opinion: Mulvihill v. Spinnato(Defamation; special motion to dismiss pursuant to anti-SLAPP statute (§ 52-196a)).
From the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represented defendant Amy Gulley (click on the link above for a version with many more links): In August 2023, a British court convicted nurse Lucy Letby of murdering seven children and attempting to murder six more. The trial garnered international media attention. When Sarrita Adams — a British expat living in California — questioned the scientific evidence behind the conviction. Claiming to hold a Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge, Adams set up a website questioning the evidence, sought to submit a friend-of-the-court brief to the British court, and began fundraising to "aid in the upcoming appeal for Lucy Letby" — even starting a for-profit company, "Science on Trial, Inc." British media outlets and internet users questioned the credibility of…
The trial court thought that the board members of the Coachella Valley Water District had brought an entirely frivolous anti-SLAPP motion, so awarded the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association over $180,000 in attorney's fees for the frivolous motion.The Court of Appeal, by contrast, thought that the anti-SLAPP motion was not only frivolous, but meritorious, so reverses and grants the "frivolous" motion on appeal.Interesting how different judges can reach such dramatically disparate rulings, eh?
Former footballer, Joey Barton has made a statement in open court, in which he apologised for suggesting that Radio 2 presenter Jeremy Vine had a sexual interest in children in a series of online posts and stated that he recognised the allegations were untrue. In settlement of the claim, Barton agreed to pay £75,000 in damages and legal costs, in addition to a further £35,000 for posts published after Vine issued his claim, after the High Court ruled that the posts were defamatory in May. However, before the High Court hearing on Friday 11 October, Barton posted another video on X, depicting Vine wearing a pair of heeled shoes and the caption, “Perfectly normal. Nothing to see here.” Vine’s barrister stated that posting the videos “negates the vindication of a statement” and Steyn J warned Barton about the risk of contempt of court should he breach the undertakings he had given not to harass Vine. The Independent, Metro,…
California Constitution
Senate Bill (SB) 399, the “California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act” (“Act”), will prohibit compelled attendance at employer-mandated meetings to discuss political and religious matters, including the decision to join or support a labor union. The Act adds the new Labor Code section 1137, and is effective January 1, 2025. Prohibition Against Employer-Mandated Political and Religious Meetings: The Act strictly prohibits employer-mandated meetings, sometimes referred to as “captive audience meetings,” in relation to a union’s organizing effort, or in which employees are required to attend and listen to the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters, including the decision to join or support a labor organization. A meeting is considered mandatory if an employee is subject to “discharge, discrimination, retaliation, or any other adverse action” because the employee declines to attend the…
By Julius Young, Richard Jacobsmeyer, Barry Bloom, Editors-in-Chief for Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Handbook [Note: This article is excerpted from the upcoming 2025 edition of Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Handbook. Sections below refer to the Handbook.] The after-effects of the COVID epidemic are still evident in the California system. Since 2020, many workers’ compensation stakeholders have changed their operational models. Large numbers of insurance brokers, employer HR departments, insurance and TPA claims departments, attorneys, and other companies servicing the workers’ compensation industry shifted to a remote work model. Depositions now frequently take place over Zoom or other video platforms. Video and telephonic medical appointments became common, although in person treatment has seen a resurgence. Some QME and AME appointments continue to be done via telehealth. For the last several years, most conferences and some…
In a published decision filed October 7, 2024, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment rejecting a CEQA challenge to the revised EIR for the State Capitol renovation project based on recent legislation exempting that project from CEQA. Save Our Capitol! v. Department of General Services (Joint Committee on Rules of the California State Senate and Assembly) (2024) ___ Cal.App.5th ___. This was the Court’s third published appellate decision in the CEQA litigation over the controversial project; see my posts dated January 2 and January 23, 2023 and May 23, 2024, covering the Court’s initial two published decisions finding flaws in the project EIR, and in the trial court’s premature discharge of the remedial writ, and my post dated July 11, 2024 covering the dispositive statutory CEQA exemption enacted through SB 174. The Court of Appeal’s Opinion Little more need be said regarding the substantive…
After nearly four years of court battles, Proposition 22—also known as the Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act—has been upheld by the California Supreme Court. The voter-enacted law allows drivers for app-based transportation and delivery companies—also known as “network companies”—to be classified as independent contractors, as long as several conditions are met. Summary of Proposition 22 In January 2020, Assembly Bill No. 5 (AB-5)—the landmark bill that created a streamlined test for determining which workers are independent contractors—took effect. AB-5 codified the “ABC test” set forth by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Super. Ct. Under the ABC test, a worker may be treated as an independent contractor only if the hiring entity can meet three conditions. After the enactment of AB-5 made it virtually impossible to classify workers as independent contractors, many…
By Thomas A. Robinson, co-author, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law Editorial Note: All section references below are to Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, unless otherwise indicated. Traveling Employee Injured in Fall Down Employer’s Unobstructed Stairs. Acknowledging that generally, traversing stairs is a neutral risk and injuries resulting therefrom are not compensable under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, but construing the state’s rules on traveling employees, an Illinois appellate court affirmed a finding of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission that a town’s “blight inspector” was a traveling employee and accordingly, that injuries sustained by him in a fall down unobstructed stairs at a town office building were compensable [see Town of Cicero v. Illinois Workers’ Comp. Comm’n , 2024 IL App (1st) 230609WC, 2024 Ill. App. LEXIS 819, § 7.04 n. 41.1]. The court agreed…
California law provides that any licensee of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control or agent or employee of the licensee, who sells, gives or delivers to any person any alcoholic beverage between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. of the same day, and any person who knowingly purchases any alcoholic beverages between those hours, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25631. Thus, if it 3 in the morning and you are looking for a drink, you are out of luck in California. Your luck, however, may soon change as a result of legislation recently passed by the California legislature. AB 3206 (McKinnor) allows the sale of alcoholic beverages between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. at an on-sale licensed premises operated in a fully enclosed arena with a seating capacity of at least 18,000 seats located in the City of Inglewood, subject to certain conditions. If that sounds very specific, it is. The only arena that fits this…