John Oliver Takes On SLAPP Suits And Anti-SLAPP Laws With A Grand Musical Number
from the eat-shit-bob dept
Ever since coal boss Bob Murray threatened and then sued John Oliver and HBO over their story mocking his supposed concern for coal miners, I've been publicly (and possibly privately*) bugging Oliver and his team at HBO to do an episode specifically about SLAPP lawsuits and anti-SLAPP laws. And I'm happy to say that they listened! This past Sunday, Oliver's big story was all about SLAPP suits and anti-SLAPP laws, and focused again on Bob Murray, who finally dropped his case against Oliver and HBO earlier this year. It is well worth watching all the way up until the end:
While most of the attention is obviously going to that fairly epic final musical number of insults directed at Bob Murray, I wanted to call out a few important points that were mentioned earlier in the piece that might have been passed over by some:
- Oliver highlights the real chilling effects of SLAPP suits in a variety of ways, including a newspaper that deleted all its coverage of Murray despite winning a defamation lawsuit he filed against it for covering a protest against his companies, and the fact that there are two ongoing lawsuits involving claims of harassment by Murray of employees that have received almost no news coverage at all. The point of SLAPP suits is to create a chilling effect on people talking about things. And it works unfortunately often.
- The stunning costs of these lawsuits. Oliver notes that their own lawsuit cost HBO over $200k in legal fees and resulted in a tripling of the show's insurance premiums, despite the fact they won the case easily. I note this in particular, because I've heard some people argue that we don't need anti-SLAPP laws (or, relatedly, Section 230) because "private insurance" can fix the problems by protecting companies. Except, as the Murray/Oliver case shows, that's not at all true.
- How blatant these cases can be. Oliver mentions the fact that long after Trump sued reporter Tim O'Brien for $5 billion for reporting that Trump wasn't actually as wealthy as he claimed to be, Trump admitted he "did it to make his life miserable, which I'm happy about." Oliver also has a clip of the lawyer for a waste disposal company, GreenGroup, literally laughing about suing some people for $30 million, because they raised concerns about the storage of toxic coal ash on Facebook.
- The wide variance in quality of anti-SLAPP laws. To simplify matters, Oliver just mentioned that they vary in quality, but focused on states with anti-SLAPP laws vs. those without them at all. But the difference in individual states matters quite a lot as we've discussed many times in the past. There are reasons why Devin Nunes filed multiple lawsuits in Virginia despite California almost certainly being the proper venue for his SLAPP suits.
- The importance of a federal anti-SLAPP law in addition to good state anti-SLAPP laws. Oliver briefly mentions the lack of a federal anti-SLAPP law but mostly in passing to describe why lawsuits can be filed almost anywhere (highlighting how Bob Murray sued him in West Virginia, despite Oliver being in New York and Murray being in Ohio). But a federal anti-SLAPP law also has some importance beyond jurisdiction shopping for better state laws -- including that some courts (incorrectly in my opinion) argue that state ant-SLAPP laws cannot apply in federal court, even in states with anti-SLAPP laws.
- Also, that you might not always be happy with who anti-SLAPP laws protect. Indeed, while Oliver talked about President Trump wanting to open up our libel laws to file more SLAPP suits, it might have also been useful to highlight that Trump himself used Texas' anti-SLAPP law to get the defamation lawsuit filed by Stormy Daniels tossed out.
Oh well, I guess there will always be time for Oliver to do a follow up show on SLAPP and anti-SLAPP In the future (sorry guys, not leaving you alone just yet!).
* In full disclosure, yes, I did spend a few hours across a few phone calls talking to people from Oliver's team after they reached out to me saying (I think, jokingly) that they were sick of me constantly writing about how they should do a show about SLAPPs. I have no idea if anything I said to them was even remotely useful but am thrilled to see them cover this issue.
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
Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, bob murray, federal anti-slapp, free speech, intimidation, john oliver, slapp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I used to watch him on the daily show and he was on the Colbert report a few times. I wish I had more energy to stay awake to watch Oliver more often.
Thanks for linking to his stuff. He's actually a lot funnier on his own show. Probably because he has more dedicated writers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And don't forget...EAT SHIT BOB!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
John Oliver's show has a Youtube channel where many stories (including this one) are posted. Watch whenever you want!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Full Circle
Saw this video last night. I should have suspected you had a hand in it Mike. Well done! Keep up the good work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Techdirt ahead of the times again
I've been providing info about techdirt to anyone who has posted the Oliver piece online. Your anti-SLAPP coverage over the years has always been informative, keep up the good work, Mike!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In case that wasn't clear enough:
EAT SHIT, BOB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just logged on to say...
Eat shit Bob!
and good work Mike! I think John does a decent job of trying to educate while keeping it funny too, which isn't easy. Too bad congress can't get their collective crap together to pass a Fed level anti-slap legislation, that should be bi-partisan enough to run the gauntlet. One would hope....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh right, Masnick
John Oliver totally did this segment because YOU urged him to. I'm sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If Republicans are told democrats oppose anti-SLAPP laws, it will pass in record time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dons tin foil hat
They didn't mention it because the show or someone affiliated with it IS the cow twitter account.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
They're not nearly the only ones who deserve it.
Eat shit, blue, Hamilton, John Smith, antidirt, Richard Bennett!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Insurance should not be the answer to all lawsuits, particularly SLAPP lawsuits. Just like it shouldn't be the answer to ransomware, data leaks and human stupidity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
'People are weaponizing the court system to silence people that say things they don't like.'
'No problem, we'll just add in an insurance system to cover lawsuits like that.'
That's not just 'solving' the wrong problem, it's adding problems, as it means that those that cannot afford such insurance are left facing SLAPP suits that stand to bankrupt them, whereas those with money don't have to worry as much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh right, Masnick
Jealous much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh right, Measles boy
Hey bro. If your brain wasn’t ravaged by the swelling caused by a preventable disease, you would have the reading skills required to actually comprehend the article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Quick! Everyone in Red States contact their critters and tell them this! It's more likely than not that the Baron is correct.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh right, Masnick
You may want to increase your reading comprehension skills.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The idea of litigation insurance just seems silly to me. IMO, any civil lawsuit targeting speech should have a fee-shifting provision for when the plaintiff fails.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh right, Masnick
If you think that's what I said or implied or thought, then you should ask for a refund on whoever taught you reading comprehension.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh right, Masnick
Why not? Apparently you think we beat smallpox because we urged the virus to fuck off, not because of vaccines.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eat Devine Nunes' Cowshit, Bob.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
A youtube channel run by a lawyer, LegalEagle put out a video analyzing Oliver's segment. He also stated that having fee-shifting would help discourage these SLAPP suits, stating that the American Rule that each side always pays their own legal costs, is different from the British Rule where the loser will always pay the legal fees of the winner.
But, on the other hand, that's part of the point of some of the Anti-SLAPP laws, that they allow this fee-shifting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]