Recent Court Decisions (SLAPP case in Louisiana)-
News Story
Defamation suit against prof for Web-site criticism dismissed
By The Associated Press,
First Amendment Center Online staff
05.22.03
MONROE, La. — A university professor had the right to criticize school officials on matters of public interest, a Louisiana appeals court has ruled in dismissing a defamation lawsuit.
Louisiana's 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals sided with John Scott, a former University of Louisiana at Monroe economics professor who argued that the defamation lawsuit against his Web site should be dismissed under a state law designed to stop lawsuits that target legitimate free-speech and free-petition activities on matters of public interest.
The decision is a blow to Richard Baxter, former vice president for external affairs at ULM, who sued Scott over the now-defunct www.truthatulm.homestead.com. Baxter claimed Scott defamed him on the Web site.
Baxter sought damages because of alleged injury to his reputation, loss of career advancement and loss of business opportunity, he claimed in the suit.
Because Scott's Web site concerned the operation of a public institution, it was a constitutionally protected form of free speech, the appellate panel said in its May 16 opinion in Baxter v. Scott.
The court found that Baxter could not proceed with his lawsuit because of Louisiana's anti-SLAPP — or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — law. The law seeks to protect First Amendment freedoms by allowing courts to weed out lawsuits designed to chill public participation on matters of public significance.
"We believe that publishing statements relating to matters of public interest on a website is an exercise of one’s constitutional right of free speech," the court wrote.
Baxter, who stepped down as vice president last summer to return as a professor in mass communications, couldn't be reached for comment. Scott, who now teaches at an Arkansas university, also couldn't be reached for comment.
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Thursday, November 17, 2005
18 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
It's nice that Louisiana has an anti-SLAPP law along with 12 other states. Why doesn't Texas have one?
Does anyone know where the MUD 2 website link is on the new "redesigned" website? I can't seem to find it.
That doesn't surprise anyone.
It's just like the process where by developers have no gov't over-sight but realtors do through the TREC. I guess the developers have a more powerful PAC.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm reposting this from another thread. See explanation below:
***This was approved by our non-resident unelected board of directors of our residents association here in Sienna on May ’05 to which we are taxed (without voting representation on our board) approximately $3 million a year. Is this a violation of free speech?--You be the judge***
SIENNA PLANTATION RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION, INC. RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION IN AREAS OF COMMON RESPONSIBILITY
Adopted: ____________________ The following Rules and Regulations Regarding Dissemination of Information in Areas of Common Responsibility (the “Rules”) are promulgated by the Board of Directors of the Sienna Plantation Residential Association, Inc. (the “Association”), pursuant to the authority found in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Sienna Plantation Residential Association, Inc., recorded under Clerk’s File Number 9734406 in the Official Public Records of Real Property of Fort Bend County, Texas (the “Declaration”) and the Articles of Incorporation of the Association, filed with the Texas Secretary of State on the 9 th of June, 1997. Unless otherwise specified herein or if the context clearly indicates otherwise, the words used in these Rules shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Declaration. An Area of Common Responsibility is owned, maintained and/or controlled by the Association. Area of Common Responsibility, as defined in the Declaration, means the “Common Area, together with those areas, if any, which by contract or agreement become the responsibility of the Association. Road rights-of-ways within or adjacent to the Properties may be part of the Area of Common Responsibility.” Common Area, as defined in the Declaration, means “any and all real and personal property and easements and other interests therein, together with the facilities and improvements located thereon, now or hereafter owned by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners and Occupants.”
The Association hereby adopts the following Rules:
1. No Owner and/or such Owner’s guests, invitees or agents may disseminate, post, or otherwise display or distribute any written information (including, but not limited to banners, handbills, newsletters, flyers, leaflets and the like) of any nature, content or kind, in or on an Area of Common Responsibility.
2. No Owner and/or such Owner’s guests, invitees, or agents may engage in any of the following activities in any Area of Common Responsibility: (a) picketing, (b) otherwise spreading propaganda, (c) using sound and/or voice amplifying devices (including, but not limited to microphones, amplifiers, or other similar devices), and/or (d) causing or encouraging persons to assemble for the purpose of spreading propaganda;provided, however, any such activities listed in this Section 2 shall be permitted so long as such activities are commenced in furtherance of a Community Sanctioned Event, as defined below.
3. A Community Sanctioned Event shall mean an event or activity approved by the Board of Directors and/or General Manager of the Association, which event or activity is (i) a fundraising, charity, pledge, drive or similar event sponsored and/or organized by the Association, the Declarant, other organization approved by the Association, or an organization defined under Section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, or their successor statutes, or (ii) sponsored and/or organized by the Association for the benefit and/or enjoyment of the Owners and/or the community.
4. The determination of whether an Owner or such Owner’s guests, invitees, or agents are in violation of these Rules shall be made by the Board of Directors of the Association and/or the General Manager of the Association, in their sole and absolute discretion.
5. If an Owner or such Owner’s guests, invitees, or agents engage in activity prohibited by these Rules, the Association, pursuant to and to the extent of the authority granted in the Declaration may, take one or more of the following actions: (a) suspend the enjoyment rights of such Owner with respect to the Common Areas for any period not to exceed sixty (60) days subject to notice that may be required by applicable law; (b) consider a person who enters upon and is present in an Area of Common Responsibility for a purpose in violation of these Rules a trespasser; (c) impose fines, upon notice and opportunity to cure as may be required by Texas law; and/or (d) remove and/or dispose from the Areas of Common Common Responsibility any items that are placed and/or posted in the Areas of Common Responsibility in violation of these Rules; in doing so the Association or its agents shall not be subject to any liability for trespass, other tort or damages in connection with or arising from such removal and/or disposal nor in any way shall the Association or its agent be liable for any accounting or other claim for such action.
6. “Owner” shall not include the Association, the Declarant, or any of their respective agents, successors, designees, replacements or assigns.
SIGNED this the _____ day of ______________, 2005.
Who are our village representatives and what is their role? Don't we elect them to represent us on the SPRAI board?
We would like to offer our congratulations to the Feinberg family on the birth of their daughter Rebecca! We offer our prayers and thoughts for you at this time of year.
CRD
In response to the above question on village reps.
A: The village representatives are elected by village (supposedly every 2 years). Nominations are suppose to be solicited by village and announced via the newsletter (keep an eye out for them). Apparently votes can be gathered by proxy so ask for information on this process too! We do not know who handles the vote counting so someone may want to check on this.
-The village reps. though do not have a vote on our SPRAI board, only the developers do (Smith, Goff & Mahoney). Apparently anyone can attend these sessions but only the non-resident, un-elected developers get to vote on issues impacting us (like the recent covenant passed restricting free speech in Sienna). Also we do not have any representation when they decide to go into "executive session".
-CRD has continued to seek 2 homeowner's seats, elected at large, for minority representation on the board (voting counts handled by a neutral authority) for months now. This would allow homeowners representation in executive sessions and a REAL voice on issue in the community impacting our home values. This model has been use in other area neighborhoods successfully. We ask that all residents endorse this effort.-Thanks for the questions.
"Louisiana's 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals sided with John Scott, a former University of Louisiana at Monroe economics professor who argued that the defamation lawsuit against his Web site should be dismissed under a state law designed to stop lawsuits that target legitimate free-speech and free-petition activities on matters of public interest."
This piece of the article sounds very similar to the JDC SLAPP case against homeowners here in Missouri City.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
More motions/responses filed on this case:
31-OCT-2005
09:12 AM MOTION FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: RELATOR'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
02-NOV-2005
11:00 AM RESPONSE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S RESPONSE TO RELATOR'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
04-NOV-2005
02:44 PM RESPONSE FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: RELATOR'S REPLY TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST SJD'S RESPONSE TO RELATOR'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
09-NOV-2005
02:46 PM RESPONSE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S RESPONSE TO RELATOR'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
14-NOV-2005
02:07 PM RESPONSE FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: RELATOR'S REPLY TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST SJD'S RESPONSE TO RELATOR'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Did Doug declare himself the winner yet? . . . ;-)
There are no winners in a case like this. The developer destroys lives and familes and the negitave PR takes away 1000 times more revenue dollars that the case cost them. You think that SJD could have asked Matthew Feinberg or Chris Calvin instead of taking them to court?
It looks like this case in Louisiana with anti-SLAPP laws took place at the appeals level and was a website using anonymous blogging.-Interesting what a little common sense in a court allows in the way of public interests (see below):
"A writ of certiorari was granted to review the trial court’s denial of a special motion to strike, filed by the defendant pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 971, against the petition of the plaintiff in this defamation action. Finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a probability of success on his claim, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and grant the defendant’s motion to strike. FACTS This writ arises from a defamation action by Richard Baxter, the former Vice President of External Affairs for the University of Louisiana at Monroe (ULM). Baxter originally filed suit against John Doe #1-6, but later amended his petition to name John Scott, a former professor at ULM, as the defendant. Scott created and authored “WWW.TRUTHATULM” or “Truth at ULM” an anonymous website on which he addressed what he considered to be matters of mismanagement and abuse of office by members of the administration of ULM’s President Lawson Swearingen. Baxter was a member of Swearingen’s administration, and Scott’s website included references to Baxter. Baxter was able to learn Scott’s identity through proceedings filed in federal district court. Baxter then named Scott as a defendant in this state court defamation action."
Just thought everyone should know that the 14th TX Court of Appeals denied the "Writ of Mandamus" in the case 14-05-01108-CV. This keeps the current protections in the case and the modifications allowing SJD access to the deposition materials active. Thus IMHO they are free to fish for libel statements and move forward with their case. We welcome the opportunity to debate these issues in front of a jury of our peers.
Post a Comment
<< Home