EFF asked a California appeals court to uphold a lower court’s decision to strike a tech CEO’s lawsuit against a journalist that sought to silence reporting the CEO, Maury Blackman, didn’t like.
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. The court dismissed the entire complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which provides a way for defendants to swiftly defeat baseless claims designed to chill their free speech.
The appeals court should affirm the trial court’s correct decision.
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.”
Blackman’s claims are totally meritless, because they are barred by the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects Poulson’s right to publish and report on the incident report. Blackman argues that a court order sealing the arrest overrides Poulson’s right to report the news—despite decades of Supreme Court and California Court of Appeals precedent to the contrary. The trial correctly rejected this argument and found that the First Amendment defeats all of Blackman’s claims. As the trial court explained, “the First Amendment’s protections for the publication of truthful speech concerning matters of public interest vitiate Blackman’s merits showing.”
The court of appeals should reach the same conclusion.
