Tennessee Lawmakers Decide Chris Sevier Has Good Ideas, Push His Bill To Compel Speech From Media Outlets

from the SLANDER-MACHINE-has-entered-the-chat dept

There's no freer speech than compelled speech. That's the conclusion some Tennessee legislators have come to. Sure, they managed to whip up an actual anti-SLAPP law that's starting to curtail the state's reputation as a place where anyone can be sued for anything they say… including things they didn't actually say.

But the stuff flowing out the state's legislature lately has been atrocious. Late last year -- shortly after Donald Trump's election loss -- a state senator asked the federal government (Congress, specifically) to craft a law that would make flag burning illegal.

A few months later, the conservative hobby horse was taken for spin, resulting in an attempt to neutralize Section 230 protections by making it pretty much impossible for the state government to invest in anything. The bill pitched by legislators would prevent the state from investing money in any entity that benefitted from Section 230 immunity. Since Section 230 provides immunity to both providers and users, any users of internet services would also be deemed ineligible for state investment.

The state legislature isn't done threatening free speech and free speech-adjacent protections. For reasons only known to a few lawmakers, it's apparently time to start compelling speech. And for reasons no one will be able to adequately explain, presumably non-insane legislators are allowing Chris Sevier -- perhaps most famous for suing Apple for not preventing him from watching porn on his laptop -- to speak through them by introducing his whereas-heavy rants as legislative proposals.

Sevier managed to do the same thing in Rhode Island last year. He shoved a bill into some legislators' hands and somehow legislators thought attacking free speech with laws was a good idea. It's happening again in Tennessee: same legislation, same stupid name, same not-so-benign idiot pushing it.

The so-called "Stop Guilt by Association Act" takes aim at… something. What it actually does is compel speech. The bill would be an entertaining read if it were satire. But it's very real and there are already two versions (House and Senate) awaiting debate in the Tennessee legislature.

The bill [PDF] tosses around a lot of invective and inadvertently hilarious phrases. It opens up with some lip service to the constitutional right it's going to be violating shortly thereafter:

WHEREAS, the general assembly finds that the first amendment of the United States constitution asserts that the government "shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press";

and WHEREAS, freedom of the press in the United States is not absolute and is subject to certain restrictions, such as defamation law;

and WHEREAS, the state has a compelling interest to compel the press to promote the objective truth for the sake of the viability of democracy; for the safety, health, and welfare of our communities; for keeping with the spirit of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment; and for stopping the press from serving as a slander machine…

Slander Machine is my new favorite post-punk band.

The only thing "compelling" here is the speech the legislature is planning on forcing out of media outlets. It's basically a "right to be forgotten" bill stapled to incredibly novel theories about what a free press is obliged to do when reporting on arrests, indictments, lawsuits, etc.

WHEREAS, 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 in-kind by selectively reporting on the facts of the original case but not on the actual outcome in actions where the petitioner received less relief than originally sought, which cultivates an unjust prejudicial conviction in the court of public opinion, causing the cause to be shunned, avoided, and marginalized, and the media outlet guilty of defamation in-kind to the point that it unduly decreases the quality of life for the accused…

Hey, that sucks. But that's not a free speech issue. The government has no business -- much less a "compelling interest" -- telling media outlets they need to report on all aspects of any litigation or criminal case. Sure, it would be great if press outlets reported that the person they splashed all over the pages three months ago has been cleared of all charges, but that's just not going to happen in most cases, and the government has no right to force media outlets to publish articles detailing these often-ignored outcomes.

The legislation is completely unconstitutional. There's just no way around it. And allowing an unedited Sevier to engage in proxy speechmaking is just all kinds of stupid.

WHEREAS, the purpose of this act is to prevent unchecked media outlets from acting as slander machines by engaging in defamation in-kind, abusing the general public, and degrading the integrity of our institutions of justice through selective reporting on cases and controversies that cultivate false narratives to the point that it unduly injures the accused by eroding their civil liberties, causing them to be shunned and avoided by the general public due to a cloud of suspicion of wrongdoing that does not exactly align with the original allegations or the relief provided in a case and controversy lodged before a government body; protect the integrity of the press and encourage good character of the members of the press corps; deter malicious prosecution, abuse of process in general, the overcharging of defendants by prosecutors, and the seeking of excessive relief in the original cause complaint by plaintiffs; promote a mercy-centric justice system because no human is perfect; and deter convictions in the court of public opinion that do not necessarily align with convictions by our institutions of justice…

Left unexplained is how compelling speech "protects the integrity of the press." And while it's great to see someone (sort of) acknowledge prosecutors engage in overcharging and the criminal justice system is largely devoid of mercy, this bill was written solely to give government officials the power to make press outlets cover what they want them to cover. Everything else is ornamental, added to the bill to give the impression the sponsors aren't interested in respecting the First Amendment or editorial decisions made by press outlets.

This is some super-weird Fairness Doctrine-esque bullshit:

(a) A media outlet shall provide equal coverage in comparable time, place, magnitude, prominence, scale, and manner in the same format as the original reporting of a case and controversy, if:

(1) The media outlet reported on the facts of a case and controversy and the final verdict provided less relief against the accused than originally sought by the petitioner or less than could have been obtained by the petitioner; and

(2) The accused or the authorized agent of the accused sends an electronic or written notice demand to an authorized agent of the media outlet within twenty (20) days after the verdict or outcome, demanding that the facts surrounding the final and actual decision or outcome be reported and published as a follow-up to the original reporting

Who will run the press? Everyone but the press themselves apparently.

(d) If a media outlet reports on the facts of a case and controversy and displays the mugshot of the accused, and the accused is acquitted, enters into a plea of no contest, or receives an outcome more favorable than originally sought by the petitioner or available to the petitioner, then the media outlet shall:

(1) Take down or remove the mugshot from any digital publication, if possible; and

(2) Not display the mugshot in any follow-up publication that reports on the actual outcome of the case and controversy and shall only display images that the accused has authorized the media outlet use.

Whew. That's a lot of wrong to fit into eight pages of performative lawmaking. And that's what it is. It's a bill specifically written by one person who has an outsized axe to grind because of his inability to stop turning himself into the target of public ridicule.

What's worse is the legislators pushing this, who are apparently going to pretend the bill isn't a transparent attack on First Amendment protections.

Constitutionality issues aren't deterring the bill's two conservative sponsors, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, and Sen. Janice Bowling, R-Tullahoma. They have introduced the legislation as House Bill 1219/Senate Bill 1297.

"You know what, I think you ask a lot of attorneys, line them all up, some would say that it's unconstitutional, some would say it's constitutional, some would probably have a mix," Lynn told the Times Free Press. "There's differing opinions."

LOL oh my no. That's self-deception right there, Rep. Lynn. No lawyer is going to tell you this bill is constitutional.

Said Bowling: "It's just to make certain that someone's reputation, in fact their life, gets kind of restored because it's hard, one person at a time who looks at you and says 'Wasn't that your picture on the front page or wasn't that your picture on the newscast or whatever?' And they say 'No, I'm innocent.' You know, well sure. It's just inequity."

Maybe so, but due process (which is also namechecked multiple times in the bill) is something to be expected from the government in criminal cases. The lack of follow-up on cases by the press doesn't violate anyone's due process rights.

It made the final legislative cut for the next season of Tennessee law-wrangling, which begins in just a couple of days. If there's any intelligence left in the legislature, the bill will get laughed out of the Capitol, rather than inch closer to the governor's desk.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, chris sevier, compelled speech, free speech, freedom of the press, tennessee

State Court Says Tennessee's Anti-SLAPP Law Is Constitutional, Shuts Down Litigant Involved In Baseless Libel Litigation

from the maybe-work-on-your-reputation-rather-than-suing-third-parties dept

Tennessee is filled with awful legislators. Fortunately, despite itself, the legislature passed an anti-SLAPP law that appears to finally be putting an end to ridiculous libel lawsuits in the state. Prior to this, residents and libel tourists were abusing the law to do things like silence legitimate criticism and -- believe it or not -- sue a journalist for things said by someone he interviewed.

While the state legislature continues pissing tax dollars away asking the federal government to institute criminal penalties for flag burning and requesting state colleges forbid student-athletes from expressing anything other than reverence for the flag, state courts are quietly ensuring their better legislative efforts remain viable.

A short ruling [PDF] issued by a Tennessee circuit court says the state's anti-SLAPP law is not only constitutional, but serves a valuable purpose. (via Courthouse News)

The plaintiff -- Tiny House Chattanooga -- sued Sinclair Broadcasting after news coverage of the fallout from a reality program episode involving the tiny house manufacturer resulted in some acrimonious behavior by both parties: Mike Bedsole of Tiny House and the nominal recipients of his tiny house, Rebecah and Ben Richards. The couple was apparently promised a house -- and some TV coverage -- but received neither.

They went to court and because the title is in Bedsole's name, the judge considered the couple tenants and evicted them.

"Based on the fact that the builder has the title in his name he had to rule in position to the builder and he gave us 10 days to vacate the property. And during those 10 days the builder took the house off the property," he said.

The couple said they have repeatedly written to Bedsole asking where their home is, but have not received a response from him.

Bedsole sued Sinclair for KABC's coverage. KABC filed an anti-SLAPP motion asking for the defamation lawsuit to be dismissed. Bedsole then filed this cross motion, asking the court to examine the constitutionality of the state's anti-SLAPP law.

The anti-SLAPP law wins. Bedsole loses.

The TPPA, at least in the eyes of this court, is clearly predicated upon public policy concerns. "The purpose of this chapter is to encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of persons to petition, to speak freely, to associate freely, and to participate in government to the fullest extent permitted by law…" T.C.A. 20-17-102. There can be no serious question that the intent of the legislature in passing this statute was to effect a more beneficial public policy.

To better benefit the public, the anti-SLAPP law allows for fee-shifting, placing the burden back on the party engaging in litigation solely for the purpose of silencing criticism. This is integral and constitutional, says the court.

This additional remedy is significant. [...] [A] greater burden has been placed upon the plaintiff than the mere requirements of Rules 8 and 12 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

However, that's not the only outcome available. Like any other litigation, the decision to shift fees still lies with the court. The new law simply provides another outlet for it to use should it decide the litigation has been pursued in bad faith.

The provisions of the TPPA do not mandate any particular result but leave the ultimate decision to within the discretion of the trial court. None of these provisions remove from the trial court the authority to interpret and apply the applicable law.

Since there's no removal of power, the law is constitutional. The challenge fails and Bedsole and his company will no longer be able to sue journalists for reporting on a housing dispute, no matter how unfavorable the coverage is to Bedsole. This ruling solidifies the state's anti-SLAPP law, making it more resilient against future challenges of its constitutionality. Bad faith litigants should be further deterred from filing bogus libel lawsuits and/or claiming the law bypasses the Constitution at the state level.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, mike bedsole, tennessee
Companies: sinclair broadcasting, tiny house chattanooga

Tennessee Politicians Ask State Colleges To Forbid Student-Athletes From Kneeling During The National Anthem

from the let's-just-keep-setting-civil-rights-back dept

Is it too late to force Tennessee to secede from the Union and become some sort of free-floating non-nation we can freely raid to shore up our non-wartime stockpiles of tobacco and country music?

To be fair, I'll list Tennessee's positives first. Within the last year, a court struck down a law that forbade the use of entertaining hyperbole by political candidates, and legislators finally passed an anti-SLAPP law with teeth -- the latter of which should head off bullshit like someone suing a reporter for things someone else said.

On the other hand, legislators continue to ignore its position as a backwater state in terms of internet access. And legislators are still doing extremely stupid things, like asking federal legislators to bypass the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent to jail people for burning the flag.

Here's the latest broadside against constitutional rights and common sense, via pretty much every member of Tennessee's Republican leadership. Let's go direct to the source of this hideousness, who provides the question this legislative bullshit begs:

If you can't see the tweet, Tennessee-located First Amendment warrior Daniel Horwitz asks:

"Hey Alexa, how do you lose judgment on the pleadings?"

Here's what Tennessee Republicans are demanding [PDF]:

In light of recent news reports, we want to address the issue of our student athletes kneeling during the National Anthem prior to sports competitions. The National Anthem is a symbol of pride for America. It lifts our spirits toward the ideals upon which our great country was founded: that all are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Written during the Battle of Baltimore, the National Anthem represents not only the freedoms we enjoy as Americans but the ultimate sacrifice paid by many in order for us to enjoy those freedoms.

One of those "freedoms" would be the freedom to criticize their government, their nation, the things it stands for, etc. But whatever.

During athletic competitions, our student athletes represent not only themselves, but also our universities and all the citizens of this state, many of whom view this form of protest as offensive and disrespectful the very thing our National Anthem represents.

Shorter Tennessee reps: we will allow the hecklers to veto this freedom.

While we recognize our student athletes may express their own views on a variety of issues in their personal time, we do not condone any form of protest that could be viewed as disrespectful to our nation or flag while they are representing our state universities. When they don the jersey of a Tennessee university, they step out of their personal roles and into the roles of an ambassador for our state. We expect all those who walk onto the field of play to show respect for our National Anthem.

This is an expectation you can't demand. Even if they refuse to kneel, you can't make them "respect" the National Anthem. Respect is earned. It can't be mandated.

To address this issue, we encourage each of you to adopt policies within your respective athletic departments to prohibit any such actions moving forward. We view this as a teachable moment in which administrators may listen to concem from students but also exercise leadership in stating unequivocally what the National Anthem means to this nation and explain proper times, places, and manners for expressing protest. While we work together to make Tennessee a better place for all our citizens, let's not focus on what divides us but on what unites us which is being an American.

Ah. A "teachable moment." In this context, it means "teaching" students who are upset with the status quo to suck it up and get it up any time the flag appears and its theme music starts playing. It means ignoring responses that don't align with Team USA jingoism in order to "unite" everyone under the state Republicans' idea of what's acceptable behavior by student-athletes.

And it's clear that any time people like this refer to "divisiveness," they're only concerned that people don't share their views, rather than seeking a way to engage honestly with people whose viewpoints differ from theirs. The nation may be divided, but it can only be united under this plan, which would force everyone to revere the flag the way these ass-hats would prefer they do.

Nice work, reps. How did you say you like your mockery? Relentless? Good. Let the shit hit your fans, you insufferable losers.

That being said, this won't necessarily be an easy thing to prevent. The government stepping in to tell student-athletes how they can behave is on the wrong side of the Constitution, considering these universities are publicly funded.

On the other hand, courts have given some leeway to schools to add additional rights restrictions to extracurricular activities, which means they may be allowed to tell students how to behave during sportsball games, even if they can't restrict their speech elsewhere. Sports participation is voluntary and generally comes with strings attached.

But Horwitz isn't wrong. This certainly won't be an easy case for the government to win if this flag-molesting, masturbatorial fantasy becomes a reality. Criticism of the government tends to receive the most First Amendment protection and taking a knee during the anthem cannot possibly be seen as anything other than criticism.

Of course, the universities are free to politely decline this ridiculous request. But it would be so much better if they'd send a message of their own stating that they respect their students' rights far more than they respect pandering to the worst aspect of state politicians' voter bases.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, civil rights, free speech, grandstanding politicians, kneeling, protests, sports, students, tennessee

Tennessee State Rep Ask US Congress To Ignore Supreme Court Precedent And Outlaw Flag Burning

from the 'attached-please-find-all-the-reasons-this-won't-work' dept

Perhaps Tennessee State Representative Jay Reedy read the electoral room wrong on November 5 and thought his boy would remain president for another four years. Maybe he was just drunk on the success of securing his state rep position in the general election after a strenuous unopposed campaign. Whatever the case, Rep. Reedy is apparently hoping Congressional reps will return to Capitol Hill refreshed and ready to violate the Constitution.

The first shot of Rep. Reedy's new term is this: a resolution urging Congress to make flag burning illegal. This is something Trump threatened to do a handful of times during campaign rallies. This is also something pretty much no one seriously thinks would have a chance of standing up to Constitutional scrutiny. Nevertheless, this resolution exists. And the best part of the resolution is it explains exactly how it will fail even as it calls for Congress to make it happen. (h/t Peter Bonilla)

WHEREAS, a 1931 case set the first precedent for the use of a flag in an act of symbolic speech under the First Amendment, when the Court struck down a California law that banned the flying of a red flag to protest against the government; and

WHEREAS, in 1968, Congress approved the Federal Flag Desecration Law after a Vietnam War protest. The law made it illegal to "knowingly" cast "contempt" upon "any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning or trampling upon it."; and

WHEREAS, the Court moved toward its 1989 decision about flag burning in 1974, when it said in Spence v. Washington that a person couldn’t be convicted for using tape to put a peace sign on an American flag. A majority of the Court saw the act as protected expression under the First Amendment; and

WHEREAS, during the next decade, states narrowed the focus on their flag desecration laws, but they still prohibited flag burning and other acts of mutilation. The issue was then decided, at least in the Supreme Court, in the decision of Texas v. Johnson…

We'll stop there for the moment because there's already so much to work with. This breaks down the history of flag desecration laws being struck down as unconstitutional. Somehow, this is Reedy's pitch for a federal flag desecration law. And it takes someone really special to claim that an issue may still be unsettled ("decided, at least in the Supreme Court"), when it has been already been addressed by the US Supreme Court.

Twice.

WHEREAS, in reaction to the Johnson decision, which only applied to the state of Texas, Congress passed an anti-flag burning law called the Flag Protection Act of 1989. However in 1990, the Supreme Court struck down that law as unconstitutional.

All of that notwithstanding (somehow), Reedy believes Congress can exercise its federal superpowers to craft a law that bans flag burning while still remaining aligned with the First Amendment.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE SENATE CONCURRING, that we strongly urge the United States Congress to enact legislation to prohibit the desecration of the United States flag.

Chances are this resolution will never make its way to Congress, no matter how much the Tennessee state legislature leans right. And this is just more jingoistic patriotism masquerading as public service from a state rep who has introduced a bunch of other dead-in-the-legislative-water timewasters over the past few years, including:

• A bid to add a section detailing the history, economic impact, and cultural uses of the Bible to the state's official government manual.
• An internet porn filter proposal that would have required of-age Americans to affirmatively opt in to access pornography -- one that asked the US Congress to enact internet filtering legislation and the DOJ to "vigorously enforce" federal obscenity laws.
• An amendment to the state Constitution declaring the listed rights came from "Almighty God."
• A resolution to designate the Bible as the official state book.
• A bill allowing law enforcement to search any vehicle parked in a jail parking lot.
• And… in this session, during a pandemic, an anti-vax bill.

Constitutionality is not Rep. Reed's strong suit. I guess the rights given to state residents (and Americans located elsewhere) by the Almighty God should be subject to Reed's personal beliefs about where those rights begin and end.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, flag burning, free speech, jay reedy, supreme court, tennessee

Tennessee Court Strikes Down Law Criminalizing Calling Political Candidates 'Literally Hitler'

from the literally-the-worst-law dept

Free speech keeps getting freer in Tennessee. The state was once home to a host of vexatious defamation lawsuits -- including one where someone subjected to mild criticism sued a journalist over things someone else said. Thanks to the state's new anti-SLAPP law, litigation is slightly less vexatious these days.

But there are still state laws posing threats to free speech by criminalizing stuff the First Amendment says is perfectly acceptable. Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws (represented by Daniel Horwitz, whose work has made multiple headlines here at Techdirt) sued the state over a campaign law that made it a misdemeanor to publish false information about candidates.

The statute says this:

It is a Class C misdemeanor for any person to publish or distribute or cause to be published or distributed any campaign literature in opposition to any candidate in any election if such person knows that any such statement, charge, allegation, or other matter contained therein with respect to such candidate is false.

The plaintiffs argued the law effectively criminalized satire and hyperbole. It pointed out it risked prosecution if it distributed its campaign material, which used a word that literally no longer can be taken literally in every context: "literally." From the decision [PDF]:

[T]he Complaint explains that the Plaintiff has described in its literature one State Representative as “Hitler”, who supported eugenics, i.e. state-sponsored chemical castration of convicted sex offenders. The Plaintiff’s analysis in its Complaint is that, “Because Representative Griffey is not, in fact, ‘literally Hitler,’ and because Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws knows that Representative Griffey is not literally Hitler, Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws’ campaign literature would violate § 2-19-142, thus subjecting members of Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws to criminal prosecution carrying a sentence of up to thirty days in jail and/or a fine not to exceed $50.00.

Here's the mailer the group says could get its members criminally charged:

The activist group says this is unconstitutional. It certainly seems to be, but the state's Attorney General apparently believes prosecuting people for engaging in political speech isn't a Constitutional issue. Here's the opinion the state AG offered in support of the law:

A prosecution against a newspaper or other news medium under Tenn. Code Ann. 2-19-142 would not raise any constitutional objections…

This statement, made in 2009, has not aged well. The Constitutional challenge has arrived. And it's victorious. The campaign focused criminal defamation law violates both the US Constitution and the state Constitution. And for several reasons (all emphasis in the original):

First, Tennessee Code Annotated § 2-19-142 punishes only false political speech in opposition to candidates for elected office, while permitting false speech in support of such candidates. Such viewpoint discrimination is incompatible with the First Amendment, and no compelling interest supports it.

Second, Tennessee Code Annotated § 2-19-142 exclusively penalizes false campaign literature opposing candidates seeking elected office, while permitting all other false campaign literature and all speech regarding noncandidates. Such content-based restrictions on speech similarly contravene the First Amendment.

Third, Tennessee Code Annotated § 2-19-142’s criminalization of “false” speech cannot be reconciled with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012), which held that a statement’s falsity alone is insufficient to remove it from the ambit of protection guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Fourth, Tennessee Code Annotated § 2-19-142 is unconstitutionally overbroad because it prohibits a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech, both in an absolute sense and relative to the statute’s legitimate sweep, and because a substantial number of instances exist in which § 2-19-142 cannot be applied constitutionally.

Fifth, by restricting speech based on its content, by proscribing protected speech, and by criminalizing political speech based on viewpoint, Tennessee Code Annotated § 2-19-142 contravenes the more expansive protections of article I, section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution.

The court declares the law a violation of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs are free to call candidates they feel align with Hitler's beliefs "literally Hitler," even when said candidates are, obviously, not the long-dead German chancellor known affectionately as the "worst person in the world."

Filed Under: 1st amendment, campaign laws, campaign literature, false information, free speech, tennessee

Anti-SLAPP Law Turns Bogus Defamation Lawsuit Into A $26,500 Legal Bill For The Plaintiff

from the federal-law-sure-would-be-nice-tho dept

Tennessee's new anti-SLAPP law has resulted in another bogus defamation lawsuit being dumped by a plaintiff before it could do any more damage… to the plaintiff. The great thing about anti-SLAPP laws is they shift the financial burden to the person bringing the lawsuit. If the lawsuit is completely without merit -- like many of those filed in Tennessee before the new law -- the plaintiff pays the defendant's legal bills.

The new law appears to have slowed the flow of vexatiously bullshit lawsuits into Tennessee courts. But there are some brave, but mostly stupid, plaintiffs willing to take the new law out for a spin. Carl Vonhartman is probably more stupid than brave. He sued Kortni Butterton for defamation after she wrote a Facebook post (on a private, invite-only page) about her experience with Vonhartman after she rejected him on a dating app.

“His Instagram is full of him being a d*****bag a****** making fun of people and generally just being a d***,” Butterton wrote.

On January 29, Butterton said the man from the dating app showed up at her door.

“I'm locked in my bathroom,” she can be heard saying to a 911 operator. “Oh my God, he's banging on my f****** house right now. He is consistently ringing my doorbell right now.”

Before police arrived, the man left.

[...]

Butterton was so frightened by the experience, she filed for a temporary order of protection, learning that the man she had rejected on the dating app’s name was actually Carl Vonhartman.

At the hearing to extend the order, Butterton explained that when she rejected Vonhartman through the app, he did not take the rejection well, asking for an explanation as to why.

Vonhartman sued [PDF], claiming he was defamed by all of this, including Butterhorn's critique of his Instagram page. Daniel Horwitz -- well-known here for his fierce defense of Tennessee residents hit with bogus libel lawsuits -- fired back [PDF], pointing out Vonhartman's defamation claims were ridiculous for a number of reasons.

[T]he Plaintiff’s claim for slander based on Ms. Butterton’s “testi[mony] in court on February 10, 2020,” during her order of protection hearing in Davidson County General Sessions Court Case No. 20OP250 is barred by Tennessee’s absolute testimonial privilege, which affords witnesses like Ms. Butterton absolute immunity for testimony given during a judicial proceeding.

[...]

[T]he Plaintiff’s claim for libel based on Ms. Butterton’s “swor[n ] allegations in her Petition for [an] Order of Protection” in Davidson County General Sessions Case No. 20OP25024 is barred not only by the absolute testimonial privilege noted above, see id.—it is also barred by the absolute litigation privilege, which guarantees all litigants “the freedom to institute an action without fear of being sued based on statements made in the course of the proceeding[.]”

[...]

[T]he Plaintiff’s claim for slander based on “false statements” that the Plaintiff alleges Ms. Butterton made to the police when she “called 911 on January 29, 2020,” is barred—as an initial matter—by the aforementioned absolute litigation privilege that extends to communications preliminary to litigation… It is also barred, independently, by the conditional public interest and common interest privileges, which immunize from defamation liability good-faith reports to law enforcement…

And here's the knockout punch:

[G]iven his abysmal reputation for both criminality and terrorizing women, the Plaintiff is libel-proof.

Along with a DUI arrest, there's the simple assault charge brought against Vonhartman, which contains this telling bit of narrative in the police report:

[The victim] advised that she told carl [Vonhartman] she was going to call the police due to the assault. she advised that carl told her "if you call the police i am going to post naked pictures of you on the internet". jennifer advised she changed her mind at that time about calling the police.

[...]

Jennifer also advised police that she has numerous text messages from carl saved that state he will post pictures of her online and also get her fired from her job.

Also included in the filing's exhibits are some Facebook Messenger chats in which Vonhartman threatens the Facebook page administrator with lawsuits, a "war," and getting her… fired from her job.

The judge overseeing the case never got a chance to address Horwitz's motion to dismiss. It must have been enough for Vonhartman that his lawyer read it. As Horwitz reports, the lawsuit has been settled and his client is the recipient of the largest fee award in the state's short history under a new anti-SLAPP law.

From the order [PDF]:

As evidenced by the signatures of adversary counsel below, all matters in controversy between the Parties have been settled and compromised, and subject to the Court’s approval, the Parties have agreed to the following conclusive resolution of this action:

1. The Plaintiff stipulates that his Complaint failed to state any cognizable claim for relief against the Defendant, and that for the reasons set forth in the Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in support of her petition to dismiss this action pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act (Doc. #12), the Defendant’s Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17- 104(a) Petition to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint Pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act (Doc. #11) should be and is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Complaint, and all causes of action asserted within it, shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

2. Upon entry of this Order, judgment shall be ENTERED in favor of the Defendant against the Plaintiff in the amount of twenty-six thousand and five hundred dollars ($26,500.00)—inclusive of all available claims for attorney’s fees, discretionary costs, and sanctions…

With a plaintiff opening with a lot of bluster and non-actionable claims and leaving $26k lighter, perhaps other litigation hopefuls will decide they'd rather not risk their own cash on questionable legal arguments. Every loss is a deterrent, but one with a $26,500 price tag is especially effective.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, carl vonhartman, dating, defamation, kortni butterhorn, rejection, slapp, tennessee