Devin Nunes Libel Tourism Continues To Highlight The Problems Of Virginia's Weak Anti-SLAPP Laws

from the something-good-can-come-of-this dept

We've talked a bunch about how Rep. Devin Nunes' ongoing series of SLAPP lawsuits, nearly all of which are in Virginia, have really served to highlight the nature of libel tourism in the US today, and in particular how plaintiffs and lawyers go hunting for jurisdictions with weak or non-existent anti-SLAPP laws. We already mentioned that Nunes's series of lawsuits has convinced at least some Virginia legislators that it's time to beef up Virginia's anti-SLAPP law, but as the Washington Post recently noted, it's also driving home how the rich and powerful engage in libel tourism by picking venues like Virginia to cause more trouble for those they sue.

Rep. Devin Nunes of California was angered by a story in his hometown newspaper detailing a claim that investors in a winery he partly owns partied with cocaine and prostitutes. So the Republican decided to sue — in rural Virginia.

Nunes bypassed the courthouse less than two miles from one of his offices and 10 blocks from the Fresno Bee to file the $150 million defamation claim against its owner 2,600 miles away. He also chose the Old Dominion to file two other recent defamation suits, one naming San Francisco-based Twitter and an anonymous user who has mocked him in the voice of an imaginary cow.

Why didn't he sue in California (where he's from and where the defendant newspaper was from)? Because, duh:

California’s anti-SLAPP law allows defendants to file a special motion at the outset of litigation if they feel the lawsuit is without merit and aimed at chilling First Amendment rights on a topic of public interest. If a judge sides with the defendant, the plaintiff is required to pay the defendant’s legal fees.

Virginia has an anti-SLAPP law, but there is no special motion provision and defendants are not guaranteed legal fees if a case is dismissed. The practical effect, experts say, is that cases can drag on until the sides begin to exchange evidence and a case goes to trial. That can mean months — or even years — of legal wrangling and hefty legal bills.

Indeed, the article notes that Virginia's anti-SLAPP law is effectively a dead letter:

“I really have not seen the anti-SLAPP in Virginia successfully applied,” said Jennifer Nelson, co-director of the University of Virginia School of Law’s First Amendment Clinic. “It does not seem to be working the way it was intended to.”

The article also notes that Johnny Depp filed a defamation lawsuit in Virginia as well, and questions why he chose that jurisdiction.

Likewise, actor Johnny Depp sued his ex-wife Amber Heard for $50 million in a Northern Virginia courthouse, claiming he was defamed in an op-ed in The Washington Post in which she called for support for domestic violence victims like herself. Both Depp and Heard live in Hollywood. Heard, who came to at least one hearing in the case, said in court filings that she had never previously set foot in the state.

But, it does appear that Virginia's reputation as a place for filing bogus SLAPP suits is getting more and more attention among lawmakers there:

The lawsuits have caught the attention of Virginia legislators. Del. Schuyler T. Van Valkenburg (D-Henrico) is preparing a bill for the state’s next legislative session in January that would seek to put its anti-SLAPP law on par with California’s. Defendants would have the opportunity to file a motion to dismiss a case early in litigation if they feel it is frivolous and, if successful, could recover fees from the plaintiff.

“If you have a democracy that works for people, the main thing we can do is make sure everyone has the ability to participate on an equal footing,” VanValkenburg said.

If so, that would be the one good thing coming from these Nunes lawsuits.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, devin nunes, johnny depp, libel tourism, slapp, virginia

Tony Robbins Crosses The Atlantic For Some Libel Tourism In Ireland; Files SLAPP Suit Against Buzzfeed

from the slappity-slapp-slapp dept

Tony Robbins is American. Buzzfeed is an American news organization. Last week, Buzzfeed published its sixth story in an investigative series about Robbins, that included a story of Robbins allegedly sexually assaulting a high schooler at a summer camp in California. Which, last I checked [looks around quickly], is also in America. So, you might wonder why it is that Robbins has sued Buzzfeed in Ireland. Robbin's lawyer, Paul Tweed has tried to defend the decision to sue in Ireland, but I'm having trouble seeing how any of this is convincing:

"My client is entitled to have his name cleared. In my opinion the Irish courts are just as capable of making that determination as the English courts or the American courts," said Mr Tweed.

He said Ireland would be the appropriate forum for both sets of proceedings as Twitter’s European headquarters is in Dublin.

"It is totally appropriate that we try to keep everything under one roof," he said.

Wait, what? He's suing Buzzfeed, not Twitter, though apparently he's threatening to sue Twitter too. For what?

Mr Robbins is not only aggrieved with Buzzfeed’s coverage, but the manner in which it has spread on social media platforms.

Mr Tweed said his firm had put Twitter "on notice" of a potential lawsuit.

That's not how any of this works.

Of course, the real reason to sue in Ireland is because either lawsuit would be laughed out of court in the US. The bar to prove defamation against a public figure like Robbins would make it nearly impossible for Robbins to win a defamation lawsuit here, unless he could somehow prove that Buzzfeed made up the reporting, which seems highly unlikely. And, of course, Section 230 of the CDA would protect Twitter. Even in Europe, it seems unlikely that Twitter could be held liable for how other people tweeted, just because Mr. Robbins is "aggrieved" about how this story spread.

Robbins himself put up a laughably bad defense of this legal strategy in a Medium post that actually starts with exactly why his lawsuit should be thrown out with Robbins being told to pay the defendants' legal fees:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter said, “Without a free press, there can be no free society.”

Freedom of the press is central to the democratic experiment and our last, best line of defense against those in power who threaten the rule of law.

Yeah, that's why we don't let rich assholes sue the media every time they publish an unflattering story. But, I guess, with Ireland not having a 1st Amendment and all, you figure why not jump on a bit of libel tourism to show them who's boss?

Robbins' Medium post does highlight some of those quoted in earlier stories who later repudiated their quotes or said they felt pressured by Buzzfeed's reporters. But that, alone, does not make the original reporting defamatory. And, the fact that Robbins is suing in Ireland, rather than the US certainly suggests that his lawyers here know that he'd lose big time if he tried it here (which also means that any attempt to try to collect money in the US should he somehow win these lawsuits under Irish law, would be easily blocked by the SPEECH Act, which bars attempts by libel tourists to go oversees to get a judgment and then enforce it against US parties).

Buzzfeed, for its part, stands by its reporting.

We learned today that Tony Robbins has started legal proceedings against BuzzFeed in Ireland following a series of reports on allegations of inappropriate sexual advances, verbal abuse and, most recently, an alleged sexual assault of a teen. This reporting is based on hundreds of interviews, audio recordings, and documentary evidence, and we stand by it unequivocally.

Mr Robbin has chosen to sue us abroad rather than address the detailed account of the woman who said he attacked her; the two women who say they saw it happen; and the accounts of dozens of others. The fact that he doesn't even seek to address these claims, choosing instead to abuse the Irish court system and attack BuzzFeed, speaks for itself.

To be fair, Robbins does pretend to try to address the latest claims of assault in his Medium post... but his "response" is basically "that was a long time ago" and nothing else:

Today, BuzzFeed published another article riddled with falsehoods, concerning an alleged incident from 1985, 34 years ago when I was 25 years old. (I turn 60 in just a few months).

He does not note a single "falsehood" in the story. Instead, the rest of his post is basically a smear campaign against Buzzfeed, filled with out of context statements and innuendo (exactly the kind of thing he claims Buzzfeed is doing to him). He complains about their journalistic technique of asking a source to confirm a story, saying that the source called Robbins instead because he "felt [the reporter] had an agenda." That may be interesting, but is not defamatory. It also goes on a weird tangent about "current research on the topic of memories" to suggest that "memories can be influenced and distorted." Look: when you don't actually respond to accusations of sexually assaulting a teen, other than to say it was a long time ago, and then start babbling on about how memories can be distorted, that doesn't make it sound like you're denying anything. It makes it sound like you're scrambling for excuses.

It seems that Tony Robbins is the latest in a long line of very wealthy men who get so upset about journalists reporting stories they'd prefer not to see who tries to SLAPP them in response. Robbins is adding the overseas element here, perhaps recognizing how badly such a lawsuit would fare in the US. But, as Buzzfeed itself notes, this kind of cowardly attack speaks for itself.

Filed Under: defamation, free speech, ireland, libel tourism, paul tweed, reporting, tony robbins
Companies: buzzfeed