Fighting For Better Anti-SLAPP Laws: I'm Joining The Board Of The Public Participation Project

from the because-free-speech-matters dept

Anyone who's read Techdirt for any length of time knows that I've spent years fighting for better anti-SLAPP laws at both the state and federal level. You may remember my public talk about the importance of anti-SLAPP's using the lawsuit against myself as an example, though my fighting for better anti-SLAPP laws dates back way before that event. Or, if you want a more humorous take on SLAPP lawsuits and the need for anti-SLAPP laws, you can check out John Oliver's clever take on the issue:

In short, SLAPP lawsuits are "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation." These are lawsuits -- generally defamation lawsuits -- that target someone's speech, not because the lawsuits have any chance of succeeding, but just because the filer knows that the lawsuit itself is a huge hassle, in terms of time, money, and attention, for those on the receiving end. What a good anti-SLAPP law does is threefold:

1. It shifts the burden quickly to the plaintiff to prove they have a viable case. This is important. Legitimate cases are not stopped by anti-SLAPP laws.
2. It makes it easier for the court to then dismiss frivolous SLAPP suits quickly, hopefully reducing the hassle aspect of such lawsuits.
3. It awards attorneys' fees to the defendant, hopefully reducing the cost of facing such a lawsuits, and providing stronger incentives against potential filers of SLAPP suits.

Unfortunately, only a little more than half of all states have an anti-SLAPP law, and there is no federal anti-SLAPP law. Also, multiple circuits have decided that state anti-SLAPP laws should not be used in federal court (multiple circuits have gone the other way as well). Even among states that do have anti-SLAPP laws, they can vary widely from state to state in terms of what they cover, how they work, and how effective they are.

To sum it up: the state of anti-SLAPP laws is a mess, and it's allowing powerful people to create real chilling effects and tie up critics and commentators with bogus, expensive, lawsuits.

For years, now, the non-profit Public Participation Project has been fighting to get better state anti-SLAPP laws passed and to get a federal anti-SLAPP law in place. They also keep track of the details of what states have anti-SLAPP laws, what they cover, and how various litigation around anti-SLAPP laws has turned out.

I've admired and relied on its work for years, and that's why I was delighted this week to agree to join the board of the Public Participation Project, and help the organization fight for better anti-SLAPP laws to protect everyone's right to free speech, and against abusive, censorious, litigation that makes a mockery of the 1st Amendment and freedom of expression.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, federal anti-slapp, free speech, slapp, slapp suits
Companies: public participation project

Bad Ideas: Newark Stupidly Threatens 'Criminal Prosecution' Against Anyone Who Reports 'False' Info About Covid-19

from the not-how-any-of-this-works dept

Look, I totally understand the very valid concerns that many people have about the spreading of false or misleading information regarding Covid-19. There are plenty of reports about misinformation spreading, especially via social media. Indeed, there are reports on the lengths to which various social media platforms are trying to crack down on all that misinformation -- a noble goal, though plenty will inevitably get through. This is the very nature of content moderation.

So, I can understand why public officials are concerned about how the spread of misinformation could be a real problem. But if you want a masterclass in how not to deal with the problem of misinformation about the coronavirus, look no further than Newark, New Jersey, where Public Safety Director Anthony Ambrose has put out a statement that is both dangerous and unconstitutional at the same time (quite a twofer). I'm posting a screenshot in the expectation (hope?) someone will realize just how bad this is and remove it. It says that anyone who posts false information about the coronavirus will face "criminal prosecution."

If you can't see that, it says:

Public Safety Director Ambrose warns against false reporting of coronavirus in Newark via social media

Newark Public Safety Director Anthony F. Ambrose strongly urges the public against posting false information on social media regarding the presence of the coronavirus in the City of Newark.

“Any false reporting of the coronavirus in our city will result in criminal prosecution,” Director Ambrose said. “We are putting forth every investigative effort to identify anyone making false allegations on social media to ensure that any posted misinformation is immediately addressed.”

Director Ambrose adds that misleading information on social media may cause an unnecessary public alarm.

“The State of New Jersey has laws regarding causing a false public alarm and we will enforce those laws,” Ambrose said. “Individuals who make any false or baseless reports about the coronavirus in Newark can set off a domino effect that can result in injury to residents and visitors and affect schools, houses of worship, businesses and entire neighborhoods,” he added.

I'm debating whether to detail first why it's dumb or why it's unconstitutional, but let's start with dumb. Threatening to criminally prosecute someone for providing "false" information is very, very likely to chill the reporting of accurate and useful information out of a fear that if it's "false" the person will face criminal prosecution. Just last month we highlighted how China's similar "crackdown" on "untruthful information" silenced the doctor who first raised the alarm about the coronavirus. If he had been able to actually get out the word faster, perhaps we wouldn't be facing such a global crisis.

Second, this is blatantly unconstitutional. The argument that this violates New Jersey's laws against "a false public alarm" is nonsense. The law in question, NJ Rev Stat § 2C:33-3 (2014) already seems to have some constitutional issues, but is targeted at people calling in a fake bomb scare or something along those lines:

... a person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he initiates or circulates a report or warning of an impending fire, explosion, bombing, crime, catastrophe or emergency knowing that the report or warning is false or baseless and that it is likely to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transport, or to cause public inconvenience or alarm. A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he knowingly causes such false alarm to be transmitted to or within any organization, official or volunteer, for dealing with emergencies involving danger to life or property.

That's very different than merely posting false information online. Such information wouldn't be intended to cause evacuation or some other form of panic. There is simply no way in which a court would find merely posting false information about Covid-19 as a criminal matter. The 1st Amendment would easily block such an action.

One hopes that someone explains not just the 1st Amendment to Public Safety Director Ambrose, but also the importance of letting people share information and not scaring them off from providing valuable information in a time of need.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anthony ambrose, china, disinformation, free speech, information sharing, misinformation, new jersey, newark

Lt. Governor Of Texas Gets Offended By An Anti-Police Shirt, Decides He Needs To Start Violating The First Amendment

from the fuck-the-drafting-of-residents-into-Dan-Patrick's-war-over-words dept

Another challenger to the First Amendment has appeared. And his name is Dan Patrick, Lieutenant Governor of Texas.

Apparently offended by a Senate hearing witness garbed in an anti-police t-shirt, the Lt. Governor welcomed all challengers via Twitter to sue him for violating people's free speech rights.

In case you can't see the tweet, it says:

Outraged to see this T-shirt at a Senate Hearing Thur. Future witnesses beware. No one will ever be allowed to wear such a vulgar shirt in a Senate hearing again-especially one that denigrates the brave men & women of law enforcement. Want to take me to court? Ok. Make my day.

If you can't see the shirt (and you can't, because Dan Patrick blurred out the offending words/images), it's a hand with the middle finger extended above the phrase "Fuck the police."

Clearly of the belief that Supreme Court precedent almost exactly on point has no bearing on Texas Senate proceedings, the state's second-in-command has promised to ban any t-shirt he subjectively feels is "vulgar," but "especially" the ones that "denigrate" law enforcement.

The Supreme Court precedent -- delivered nearly 50 years ago -- dealt with a 30-day jail term given to a courthouse attendee who wore a "Fuck the Draft" jacket. That clearly denigrated the brave men and women who decided who was eligible to go die for their country in the United States' most infamous losing effort. The Supreme Court ruled that the government violated the First Amendment by demanding citizens only wear/make the most innocuous of statements while in the government's presence.

Patrick's proposal sounds exactly like a content-based ban on speech, which is exactly the sort of thing the First Amendment guards against. But there are those who believe time-and-place restrictions could allow Patrick's ban to bypass the First Amendment. Why? Because the state legislature can do whatever the hell it wants, apparently.

Chuck DeVore, vice president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Austin, disagrees with Patrick’s critics.

Legislative chambers, DeVore said, have the power to set their own rules of decorum as a co-equal branch of government. While the courts have the power to review laws passed by a legislature, they cannot tell lawmakers how to pass those laws or run their affairs, he said.

Well, that assertion aside, the desire to ban things that offend one government official sure sounds like something a court should rule on. The Lieutenant Governor is on (Twitter) record as welcoming legal challenges to his "won't someone think of the cops?" content-based restriction. These are the oh-so-brave words of a man willing to spend other people's money to defend a move many of those people likely don't agree with. That's the luxury legislators have: the ability to force people to defend indefensible positions by proxy (but also directly via their tax dollars).

At some point, Patrick and his stupid new rule triggered by his triggering will have their day in court. And it seems highly unlikely he'll prevail. When he's done blowing money on forcing the public to respect cops, maybe the state's residents will be kind enough to vote his censorial ass out of office. Until then, the lieutenant governor will remain dissed like the cops he loves so much that he's willing to violate the Constitution for them.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, dan patrick, free speech, fuck the police, texas

Trump Campaign Suing All His Media 'Enemies': Files Another Silly SLAPP Suit Over CNN Opinion Piece

from the opening-up-our-libel-laws dept

Just as the country starts dealing with what the hell it's going to be doing about Covid19, the President and his campaign have decided that now is the time to file laughable SLAPP suits against every one of the media entities on his usual thin-skinned enemies list. First it was the NY Times, then it was the Washington Post, and on Friday, it was the third in his triumvirate of media he loves to hate: CNN. As with the first two, this is yet another Charles Harder joint, and, as with the first two, this is suing over an opinion piece. Also, as with the first two, this is a laughably vexatious lawsuit, in which he is assaulting the very 1st Amendment he has sworn an oath to protect and defend.

You can read the CNN opinion piece that the campaign is suing about. It's by Larry Noble, the former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission, and is similar in many ways to the pieces he sued about in the Washington Post, arguing that an interpretation of the Mueller report in a manner displeasing to the President is somehow defamatory. That's ridiculous and everyone involved in this lawsuit should be embarrassed.

On or about June 13,2019, CNN published an article on the www.CNN.com website entitled "Soliciting dirt on your opponents from a foreign government is a crime. Mueller should have charged Trump campaign officials with it" by Larry Noble (the "Defamatory Article"). The Defamatory Article claims, among other things, that the Campaign "assessed the potential risks and benefits of again seeking Russia's help in 2020 and has decided to leave that option on the table." The Defamatory Article does not cite to any facts or reasoning in support of this claim.

The Defamatory Article is false. In fact, the Campaign has repeatedly and openly disclaimed any intention to seek Russian involvement in the 2020 election. The examples of this are too numerous to fully enumerate, but examples include: (a) then-Press Secretary Sarah Sanders stated on August 2,2078 that "[s]ince the beginning of his administration, President Trump has implemented a whole-of-government approach to safeguard our nation's elections. The President has made it clear that his administration will not tolerate foreign interference in our elections from any nation-state or other dangerous actor"; (b) on September 12, 2018, while signing an executive order imposing sanctions on foreign countries who interfere in United States elections, the White House issued a statement that "the United States will not tolerate any form of foreign meddling in our elections"; and (c) on May 13, 2019, the White House stated it would not use any information hacked or stolen by foreign adversaries in the 2020 election.

Contrary to this summary in the complaint, if you read the actual article by Noble, he clearly cites the basis for his arguments, and clearly lays out the facts on which he bases his opinion. Indeed, he cites some very specific details and the specific law he is talking about. Here's just a snippet, but it goes much further in details in the article.

During the meeting, held in Trump Tower, Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort were told that two brothers who "had engaged in tax evasion and money laundering" had donated to the Democratic National Committee or the Clinton campaign. According to the report, "Trump Jr. asked follow-up questions about how the alleged payments could be tied specifically to the Clinton Campaign," but was told that the Russians "could not trace the money once it entered the United States." Apparently, not impressed with the information, Kushner "became aggravated and asked, "(W)hat are we doing here?'" The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 52 U.S.C. §30121(a)(1), prohibits foreign nationals from "directly or indirectly" contributing "money or other thing of value" in connection with any US election. Another part of the law prohibits a person from "knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals." If a person acts knowingly and willfully, meaning with general knowledge that their actions were unlawful, and the value of the contribution is $2,000 or more, it is a criminal violation. If the value is $25,000 or more, it is a felony.

When Trump Jr. replied he loved it to the offer of free Russian opposition research intended to help his father win the election, and then attended a meeting that included Kushner and Manafort to receive that information, he solicited an illegal contribution from a foreign government.

This is not some random tossed off argument -- nor does it come anywhere even remotely close to meeting the necessary bar for defamation.

Once again, the intent is likely performative -- rallying Trump's base against the media as we head into election season -- rather than with any legitimate basis in law.

This case has been filed in federal court in Georgia, home of CNN. Some may note that Georgia actually has a semi-decent anti-SLAPP law, but unfortunately (and, I believe, incorrectly as a matter of law), the 11th Circuit is one of those that has said that state anti-SLAPP laws do not apply in federal court (in fact, it did so in a case involving CNN -- Carbone v. CNN, if you're keeping track). That means, CNN won't be able to make use of the anti-SLAPP law to get the case kicked out quickly, and to have the Trump campaign pay attorneys' fees.

As with the other two cases, this one is being brought on behalf of the campaign, rather than Donald Trump himself as a party. Whether or not this limits Trump's own liability -- or his exposure to potential discovery requests -- will be an interesting element to watch as these (and any other) cases move forward.

Either way, between these Harder/Trump campaign suits and the various Steven Biss/Devin Nunes suits, it appears that the Republican party is quickly positioning itself as the party of chilling effects and silencing a free press. This is shameful behavior and should be called out as such.

Filed Under: 11th circuit, 1st amendment, anti-slapp, charles harder, defamation, donald trump, free speech, georgia, larry noble, opinions, slapp
Companies: at&t, cnn, time warner

Rhode Island Legislators Decide To Introduce Some Random Dude's First Amendment-Threatening Legislation

from the have-you-tried-approaching-your-job-professionally dept

Today's most inexplicable legislative news comes to us from the state of Rhode Island, where legislators are apparently accepting (and submitting!) unsolicited pre-written bills from strangers on the street.

[Rep. Grace] Diaz told The Journal she introduced the legislation at the request of a man named Chris who approached her after a State House hearing, wearing what appeared to be a military uniform.

According to Diaz, Chris told her he had been “accused of something,″ and then found not guilty.

Diaz said the man told her the media reported the accusations, but not his acquittal, so he was left with a damaged reputation and no recourse. Diaz said the man gave her a copy of the bill, which appears to echo a bill filed in Mississippi.

Rep. Diaz asked Senator Sandra Cano to introduce the bill in the Senate, promising to do the same thing on the House side. Diaz did not do this and now Sen. Cano is trying to separate herself from a bill that openly threatens First Amendment protections while citing the enshrined right on its way to tarnishing it shortly thereafter.

The "Stop Guilt by Association Act" [PDF] threatens journalists with punishment if they don't report on the outcome of court cases, civil and criminal. The incredibly stupid act is pure cognitive dissonance that would fine newspapers up to $10,000 for "failing" to report on lawsuit dismissals and dropped charges -- supposedly with an eye on maintaining some bizarre level of "fairness" for subjects of news coverage.

In their legislation, the lawmakers acknowledge that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says the government “shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.”

But they make this argument in their bill:

“The state has a compelling interest to compel the press to promote the objective truth for the sake of the viability of democracy and for the safety, health, and welfare of our communities and in keeping with the spirit of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and to stop the press from serving as a slander machine.”

For many reasons, legislators shouldn't accept pre-written bills handed to them by people outside the legislature. They especially shouldn't accept legislation written by this particular "Chris," no matter what he's wearing.

The man who spoke to Diaz was Chris Sevier, an anti-gay and anti-abortion activist who at one point was accused of stalking country music star John Rich.

This is the idiot behind multiple states' declarations that porn is a "public health crisis." This is the same man who once sued Apple because its products didn't prevent him from viewing porn. He has also previously talked Rhode Island legislators into introducing extremely questionable legislation, so perhaps someone should have called bullshit on this before tossing it into the Senate's inbox.

While it's understandable people might not recognize Sevier on sight, despite his insistence on thrusting himself uninvited into the legislative limelight, it's pretty much inexcusable to take a handful of paper from some rando on the street and ask other legislators to damage their own reputations by association.

Rep. Diaz at least appears to be properly horrified by this experience.

“My feeling is beyond what I can express,″ Diaz told The Journal on Thursday, after learning of Sevier’s history. “If I knew, I would run ten-thousand-million miles away from that guy.”

She said she sympathized with the issue Sevier raised in their very brief conversation, but regrets not doing more homework on him — and the legislation.

“I didn’t do my research,″ she said. “This is an experience that will teach me a lot for the future.”

But Senator Cano -- despite withdrawing the bill -- seems far too sympathetic to First Amendment-threatening legislation. Calling the lack of followup to indictments and lawsuits by journalists "fundamentally unfair," Cano says she sympathizes with the intent of the bill, even if she realizes it runs afoul of the First Amendment.

No legislator should feel sympathetic to Sevier or his word salad. His bill is an unedited letter to the editor -- one that makes its point about as skillfully and subtly as a Larry Klayman lawsuit.

“There has been a growing trend for individuals to abuse process and maliciously prosecute someone they disagree with ideologically by filing spurious cases and controversies in various government venues for ulterior motives, knowing that certain segments of the media that align with their ideology would serve as an accomplice by engaging in a form of defamation ... by selectively reporting on the facts of the original case but not on the actual outcome.”

TIL: reporting on facts is defamation if it doesn't include the facts someone might prefer to be highlighted. OK, then.

Fortunately, the bill is already dead. Unfortunately, this shows how little due diligence legislators do before submitting bills for consideration. A few minutes of Googling would have seen this headed to the trash receptacle, rather than the state legislature's permanent record. And even the most cursory glance at its contents would have made it clear the bill was unconstitutional. Better late than never, I guess. But in this case, never would have been the much better option.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, chris sevier, defamation, free speech, freedom of the press, grace diaz, rhode island, sandra cano, stop guilt by association

Donald Trump And Charles Harder Continue Their Assault On The 1st Amendment, Suing The Washington Post

from the opening-up-our-libel-laws dept

It appears whatever modest amount of restraint that our President had regarding his early promise to "open up our libel laws" have gone away. As you may recall, during the campaign he made such a promise, perhaps not realizing that defamation laws are not under the purview of the federal government -- and any changes at the state level are limited by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution (not something he can write away with an executive order). Right before he was inaugurated, he seemed to back down a little on that promise -- telling the NY Times that someone had pointed out to him that with more open libel laws, he was more likely to get sued as well.

Over the first three years of his Presidency, while constantly lashing out ridiculously at the press, and the Washington Post and the NY Times in particular -- including his constant authoritarian attack of calling them "the enemy of the people" -- he had not sued. Until last week when he tapped lawyer Charles Harder (who, we'll remind you, was the lawyer in the lawsuit against us), to represent the Trump Campaign (rather than Donald directly) to sue the NY Times over an opinion piece. Trump and Harder have now done so again, this time suing the Washington Post over two opinion pieces.

The complaint -- like the one against the NY Times -- is laughable and will be thrown out of court. Again, opinions are not defamatory, and the articles were opinion pieces. The statements they make, that the Trump campaign declares defamatory are basically all ones based on disclosed facts. The complaint is short and not very detailed. It highlights just a single line in each post that it claims is defamatory:

On or about June 13, 2019, The Post published the article entitled “Trump just invited another Russian attack. Mitch McConnell is making one more likely” (the “June 13 Article”), by Greg Sargent, which contained the defamatory claim that Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that the Campaign “tried to conspire with” a “sweeping and systematic” attack by Russia against the 2016 United States presidential election.

The statement in the June 13 Article is false and defamatory. In fact, Special Counsel Mueller’s Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election released on or about April 18, 2019 (the “Mueller Report”), nearly two months before the June 13 Article, came to the opposite conclusion of the June 13 Article, namely, the Mueller Report concluded there was no conspiracy between the Campaign and the Russian government, and no United States person intentionally coordinated with Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election.

On or about June 20, 2019, The Post published the article entitled “Trump: I can win reelection with just my base” (the “June 20 Article”), by Paul Waldman, which contains the defamatory statement “who knows what sort of aid Russia and North Korea will give to the Trump campaign, now that he has invited them to offer their assistance?”

The statement in the June 20 Article is false and defamatory. There has never been any statement by anyone associated with the Campaign or the administration “inviting” Russia or North Korea to assist the Campaign in 2019 or beyond. There also has never been any reporting that the Campaign has ever had any contact with North Korea relating to any United States election.

These are both issues that are subject to interpretation, and neither piece comes anywhere even remotely close to the necessary standard for defamation of a public figure (which, uh, the President absolutely is). On the first one, Harder is leaning heavily on the "conspiracy" word. While the Report did not show direct coordination between the campaign and the Russians, it did show multiple connection points. Indeed, the report itself says:

The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

So this comes down to interpretation. The Mueller report showed links between the Russians and the Campaign, but did not find enough evidence to prove a conspiracy -- which is not definitive evidence of no conspiracy. Indeed, the report shows multiple situations in which members of the Trump Campaign appeared interested in working with the Russian government -- but not enough evidence of an actual conspiracy was found. But to say that's evidence of no effort to conspire is just silly. The opinion piece's summary of that as "tried to conspire" is... not anywhere near defamatory, in which case the Post would have to have believed this was false or published it with reckless disregard for the truth. That's... not the case.

On the second one, I'll note, with amusement, that the final sentence only mentions North Korea as a government that the Trump Campaign has not discussed the election with and leaves out Russia. Interesting. But, more to the point, the article in question was discussing a Trump interview with George Stephanopoulos in which Trump is asked if he'd accept damaging information on election opponents from foreign nations, and Trump replied:

"I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening," Trump continued. "If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent' -- oh, I think I'd want to hear it."

That is easily, and fairly, turned into the statement in the Post opinion piece that the Campaign was "inviting" foreign help. There is no way that such a statement could or would be seen as defamatory.

In the meantime, I feel the need to remind both Harder and Trump that not too long ago, in defending Trump against a defamation lawsuit in which Trump was the defendant, Harder wrote a stirring statement in support of the 1st Amendment and warned that:

A defamation standard that turns typical political rhetoric into actionable defamation would chill expression that is central to the First Amendment and political speech.

I wish the two of them would remember that sometimes.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, charles harder, defamation, donald trump, free speech, slapp
Companies: washington post

Court Explains 1st Amendment To Tulsi Gabbard In Dismissing Her Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Google

from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept

Just a week after the 9th Circuit easily upheld the dismissal of Dennis Prager's silly lawsuit against Google for supposed anti-conservative bias, a district court has easily dismissed Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's quite similar lawsuit against Google for... anti-Tulsi bias or some such nonsense. As we pointed out when the lawsuit was first filed, the case stood no chance at all, and was using completely debunked and rejected legal theories.

Judge Stephen Wilson made short work of the case, explaining to Gabbard and her Pierce Bainbridge lawyers how the 1st Amendment works, because the theory of it they presented in her case is... not it. Indeed, the court cites to the PragerU ruling from last week:

Plaintiff’s essential allegation is that Google violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by temporarily suspending its verified political advertising account for several hours shortly after a Democratic primary debate. Plaintiff’s claim, however, “runs headfirst into two insurmountable barriers—the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.” Prager Univ. v. Google LLC,

Then we get a bit of 1st Amendment 101 -- which is the kind of thing that you would think the lawyers from Pierce Bainbridge had learned in law school, but apparently they needed a refresher course. Perhaps they can try to ask for some Continuing Legal Education credit for the lesson.

The First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. I. “The First Amendment, applied to states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits laws abridging the freedom of speech.” Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Wasden, 878 F.3d 1184, 1193 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation omitted). In effect, “the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468 (2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002)) (emphasis added).

Google is not now, nor (to the Court’s knowledge) has it ever been, an arm of the United States government. “The text and original meaning of those Amendments, as well as this Court's longstanding precedents, establish that the Free Speech Clause prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech. The Free Speech Clause does not prohibit private abridgment of speech.” Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1926 (2019) (emphasis in original); see Prager Univ., 2020 WL 913661, at *2 (“The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government—not a private party—from abridging speech.”).

And, once again, the idea that Google becomes a state actor, because advertisers use it to advertise around an election is... not right. Not right at all.

Plaintiff alleges Google has become a state actor by virtue of providing advertising services surrounding the 2020 presidential election. “Under this Court's cases, a private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances—including, for example, (i) when the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function; (ii) when the government compels the private entity to take a particular action; or (iii) when the government acts jointly with the private entity.” Halleck, 139 S. Ct. at 1928 (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff’s argument is that, by regulating political advertising on its own platform, Google exercised the traditional government function of regulating elections. “To draw the line between governmental and private, this Court applies what is known as the state-action doctrine. Under that doctrine, as relevant here, a private entity may be considered a state actor when it exercises a function ‘traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.’” Id. at 1928 (quoting Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 352 (1974)).

Traditional government functions are defined narrowly. “It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way. Rather, to qualify as a traditional, exclusive public function within the meaning of our state-action precedents, the government must have traditionally and exclusively performed the function.” Id. at 1928–29. “Under the Court's cases, those functions include, for example, running elections and operating a company town.” Id. at 1929. There is no argument that webservices or online political advertising are traditionally exclusive government functions. Plaintiff argues that, by providing some restriction on political advertising on its platform, Google is in effect regulating elections.

To support its contention that a private actor can regulate elections, Plaintiff directs the Court to Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 463 (1953). However, Terry is utterly inapposite to Plaintiff’s contention. In 1954, the Supreme Court held that the Fifteenth Amendment was implicated when a political party effectively prevented black citizens from voting. Terry, 345 U.S. at 463. The Court held: “The evil here is that the State, through the action and abdication of those whom it has clothed with authority, has permitted white voters to go through a procedure which predetermines the legally devised primary.” Id. at 477. But Terry bears no relation to the current dispute, where Google, an undisputedly private company, temporarily suspended Plaintiff’s Google advertising account for a matter of hours, allegedly based on viewpoint bias.

And then for those having difficulty catching up, the court explains that hosting election ads is not the same thing as running elections. Also, the court shoots down Gabbard's wacky theory that efforts to protect its platform from foreign interference makes it an agent of the US government. Once again, that's just laughably wrong.

What Plaintiff fails to establish is how Google’s regulation of its own platform is in any way equivalent to a governmental regulation of an election. Google does not hold primaries, it does not select candidates, and it does not prevent anyone from running for office or voting in elections. To the extent Google “regulates” anything, it regulates its own private speech and platform. Plaintiff’s “national security” argument similarly fails. Google protects itself from foreign interference; it does not act as an agent of the United States. Nearly every media or technology company has some form of cybersecurity procedure. Under Plaintiff’s theory, every media organization that took steps to prevent foreign cybercrimes could potentially implicate the First Amendment. Google’s self-regulation, even of topics that may be of public concern, does not implicate the First Amendment.

The case was so easy that it was dismissed with prejudice, so that Gabbard cannot filed an amended complaint. She might still appeal, though one hopes that she finds lawyers who might advise her on how that's likely to go.

As a side note, almost within hours of the dismissal dropping, so too did news of a bunch of new lawyers leaving Pierce Bainbridge, including one, Tom Frongillo, who John Pierce had named just weeks ago as helping him in representing Rudy Giuliani.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, free speech, social media, tulsi gabbard
Companies: google, pierce bainbridge