Can The 'Gist' Of A Book Be Defamatory, Even If Nothing Is Proven False?

from the chilling-effects dept

A few weeks back, we wrote about how Texas real estate developer H. Walker Royall "went on a lawsuit bender," upon finding out a book by author Carla Main that was critical of some of his development projects. He not only sued the author and the publisher, but also someone who reviewed the book, the newspaper that published the review and (most ridiculous of all) an academic who wrote a blurb praising the book that went on the book's jacket. The suit against the blurb writer was tossed out for lack of jurisdiction, and for whatever reason, the newspaper and the reviewer "settled" the lawsuit (which seems unfortunate). However, the lawsuit against the book author and the publisher has continued. We argued, at the time, that this was a clear example of where better anti-SLAPP laws are needed, but seeing as there are no such laws in Texas, the case will focus on whether or not the book was defamatory.

With the trial now underway, Main's lawyers are pointing out that the book is "political and social criticism," and that Royall has not proven she got any facts wrong. Royall's response is somewhat stunning. His lawyers seem to be indicating that even if there's nothing factually wrong, the "conclusions" drawn from those facts are defamatory. In other words, there may be nothing wrong with the book, but the analysis of those facts, as a whole, is somehow defamatory. This sounds an awful lot like "well, I don't like what she said, and it makes me look bad -- even if based on fact -- and thus, it must be defamatory."

Once again, this seems like a clear SLAPP situation, where someone didn't like the speech of someone else, and filed a lawsuit. Claiming that the general "gist" of a book is defamatory without being able to show any actually false statements seems like a real stretch on defamation law.

Filed Under: book, carla main, defamation, h. walker royall

The Need For Anti-SLAPP Laws: Developer Sues Author, Publisher, Academic Who Praised Book & Reporter That Reviewed Book

from the lawsuit-bender dept

We've been discussing the need for a federal anti-SLAPP law for a while, to protect people against frivolous lawsuits designed solely to get people not to speak up. Citizen Media Law Group is alerting us to a case in Texas that is calling more attention to the issue, and getting lawmakers much more interested in at least improving anti-SLAPP laws in Texas. It involves a book about a real estate project by Dallas developer H. Walker Royall, which Royall apparently did not appreciate:

When Dallas developer H. Walker Royall found out about an impending book digging into one of his projects, he went on a lawsuit bender.

He sued the author, Carla Main, and her publisher, Encounter Books. He sued Richard Epstein -- the prominent libertarian academic -- for a blurb he wrote praising the book. He sued Mark Lardas, who reviewed the book, and the Galveston County Daily News for publishing the review.

Uh, yeah. As someone who has blurbed a couple of books, that seems ridiculous. Suing the person who writes a blurb for the book, or a review of the book, claiming that they're somehow responsible? Blatantly ridiculous. The article notes that Epstein was dropped from the case for jurisdiction reasons, and Lardas and the newspaper "settled" with Royall (which seems like a bad precedent as well). However, the lawsuit against the author and the publisher is still going on, and it's drawing more attention to the need for anti-SLAPP laws.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, carla main, free speech, h. walker royall, slapp, texas