In Case You Didn't Know: Anti-SLAPP Laws Apply To Bloggers Too

from the fyi dept

Mon, May 7th 2007 6:20pm — Mike Masnick

This probably won't come as a huge shock to, well, anyone, but for the various bloggers who are getting sued by individuals or companies upset about what they're saying, bloggers do appear to be protected by anti-SLAPP laws. Of course, this doesn't mean bloggers can just go and defame or libel anyone -- but as long as there's support behind what they're saying, it sounds like a court will recognize if the suing party is simply trying to shut someone up, rather than respond to actual libel or defamation. If you're unfamiliar with them, anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect individuals who are sued by companies who are simply trying to shut up the individual. The idea is that a big company can just file a libel suit against someone they don't like (even if there's no libel), and since it's so expensive (and scary) to be sued, the individual will be forced to quiet down. Anti-SLAPP laws give the individuals a quick way to fight back and stop such bogus lawsuits.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

9 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

NickZTR, 7 May 2007 @ 8:07pm

Is techdirt being sued?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IronChef, 7 May 2007 @ 10:44pm

Interesting that...
...the almightly corporation belives that they are above the law. When your acting on the behalf of hundreds of thousands of shareholders, of course, you have more resouces than the individual.

This further strengthens my belief that there needs to be a separate set of legal handling rules for the individual versus the Corporation.

I love my consitutional rights, sad that they have to create more laws to regirgitate my ability to share speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Foxtrot, 8 May 2007 @ 4:17am

A la Scientology?
I know this probably gets worn out, but I'm curious. Why haven't these come up in the Church of Scientology's efforts to keep people quiet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scientologists = Morons, 8 May 2007 @ 8:48am

Re: A la Scientology?
Because Scientologists are stupid. considering the whole religion was written up by a science fiction writer who even said that the best way to make money was to create your own religion before he founded scientology.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2007 @ 5:59pm

Yeah it'd be fun to see the scientologists and their make believe feeble sci-fi get SLAPP'd into submission!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lloyd Ploense, 1 Sep 2007 @ 6:26am

Because it really is true that user Stan_Smith on the message board of antipolygraph.org (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl) is actually Kenneth Koek, none of my statements there can be construed as slander or libel. My statements on that message board were both factual and conjecture. The conjectural statements were used to test hypotheses. We have found a likely winner.

Thank you again George Maschke for administering that site. Hello EosJupiter, 1904 and Brettski. I’m sorry if you were kept awake (again) late at night Brettski.

Lloyd Ploense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kenn Koek, 4 Sep 2007 @ 1:48pm

Reality
Actually Lloyd, since you slandered me after you found out who I was, the slander and libel laws do apply. Don't worry Lloyd, I have better things to do than sue you for slander and/or libel. *S*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lloyd Ploense, 14 Sep 2007 @ 3:58pm

What are you talking about Kenn Koek?
So, you arse admitting that user Stan_Smith, who falsely accused me of a criminal act on that message board, is really Kenneth Koek? Looking about there, I do not understand what slander or libel you might be writing about Kenn. We see that you do have a need to finger the victim of a serious crime though. Why might that be? Don't you have better things to do with your life?

Take a look at reality Kenneth Koek. We have found a likely winner.

It was a mistake to pull that telephone redirection trick again when I was speaking to the police on 9/10/07 Kenn. Those calls are all logged. Please grow up and stop playing games.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lloyd Ploense, 17 Sep 2007 @ 7:48pm

My cell phone number has been used by others
Reviewing my cell phone statements, I see many calls I did not make. This is because someone yet to be determined has unlawfully used a VoIP (or other) web application to piggyback his or her calls onto my cell phone bill.

This is fraud and a matter for the Police and my cell phone provider to resolve. The owners of the numbers dialed will be obtained by Law Enforcement (LE) and the culpable person(s) prosecuted.

Yes, it is possible to use a cell phone as a spy device. This is against the law. We know how this was done and the who will, beyond any reasonable doubt, be determined soon.

I hope you like very narrow windows. Have a nice stay.

And by the way, I've changed my number.
[ link to this | view in thread ]