Comments on: ACLU lawyer explains libel and SLAPP

By: Neil

Neil — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:13:56 +0000

That’s right, “slight” is probably not accurate. Instead of mounting a costly defense the defendant merely has to prove the statements were not baseless and that the defendant qualifies as a petitioner.

By: Rob Bertsche

Rob Bertsche — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:11:34 +0000

I disagree with the conclusion that the “overall effect” of extending the Anti-SLAPP law’s protections to journalists “would probably be slight.” Keep in mind that where it applies, the Anti-SLAPP law operates to (1) prevent discovery from proceeding, (2) compel dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim, and (3) compel an award of attorney fees in favor of the defendant. Thus, the spectre of an anti-SLAPP motion will likely result in fewer libel claims being brought, and more of them being decided in the media defendant’s favor at an early stage.

By: Newshound

Newshound — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:54:24 +0000

Fredda Hollander must be protected, not only for herself but for the neighborhood and society in general in which she endeavors to shield from harm by reporting events, perhaps not 100% accurately but close enough.

She is the victim because of the distraction this suit is to her everyday work and ideals. That is the presumed intent of the plaintiff who wins because he really didn’t need the money anyway. It is a way to still, through intimidation, expense and annoyance, circumvent the intent of NY vs. Sullivan and other prior cases. Put another way, it is a kick in the teeth to the many commercial freedoms and opportunities one can exploit in this country, all of which is protected by, in general, the media the plaintiff attempts to victimize with some, which is too much, success.

Fortunately, Ms. Hollander gains enough from making this a good experience to help soothe this annoyance.