Court Sends John Oliver, HBO Back To State Court To Fight Bob Murray

from the what-an-odd-footnote dept

Second Bob Murray post in a day? Second Bob Murray post in a day! It would appear that the whole ACLU amicus brief side show will remain a side show. The federal district court has sent the case back to state court where it originated. We had written about HBO moving the case to federal court and (correctly) predicted that Murray would likely try to have it sent back to state court, but (incorrectly) predicted that it wouldn't work.

Just as background: in many cases, defendants want these cases in federal court because of the general belief (and you can debate whether this is accurate or not) that federal court judges are more sophisticated in understanding legal issues than their state court counterparts. This can be a little unfair to state judges (and a little too nice to some federal judges), but the general rule of thumb is if you have a strong case, it's better to be in federal court. But, this case is moving back to state court over lack of "diversity." I'll leave it to lawyers to offer a more complete explanation of diversity, but the short layman's version is that it's basically about whether or not the parties are in different states. If they are, you can move to federal court. If they aren't, you're in state court. As we explained, HBO/John Oliver had tried to argue that Murray's inclusion of various West Virginia companies that he owned was a fraudulent attempt to avoid diversity rules, as those companies weren't really mentioned in Oliver's piece. Murray and Murray Energy are based in Ohio. Oliver and HBO are based in NY.

However, here the court finds that it was proper for Murray to include the various West Virginia coal mining companies he owns as plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff Corporations in question were, therefore, properly joined, and the case should be remanded to state court. First, Mr. Murray is the CEO and director of each of the Plaintiff Corporations and is listed as the controller of the mines owned by those corporations. Not only is Mr. Murray heavily interrelated with these corporations in a formal business sense, but a reasonable person who knows of Mr. Murray, especially in West Virginia or another coal state, would find it nearly impossible to separate Mr. Murray from his corporations and mines. With such a strong interrelationship between Mr. Murray and the Plaintiff Corporations, defamatory statements made about Mr. Murray in his professional capacity may be easily seen as negatively implicating the operation of his corporations.

The court admits that the statements by Oliver were about Murray himself, and not his companies, but says the two are so closely identified with one another that it doesn't matter for this purpose. Also some of the comments Oliver made, while about Murray, were specifically about actions at Murray-owned companies.

The allegedly defamatory statements made about Mr. Murray did refer to him in his professional capacity. First, the Crandall Canyon Statement refers to a collapse at a mine Mr. Murray chaired and operated regarding the cause of the collapse. Second, The Black Lung Statement refers to Mr. Murray in his professional capacity because his decisions regarding Black Lung regulation would be made as the chairman and operator of the mines. The alleged “character assassinations” of Mr. Murray, including the Geriatric Dr. Evil Statement, refer to Mr. Murray in his capacity as a private individual because they bear no relation to his professional conduct. However, because the interrelationship between Mr. Murray and the Plaintiff Corporations is so strong, it is possible that those comments may defame the corporations if it was determined that the comments discredited the way the Plaintiff Corporations were operated. The Crandall Canyon statement implies that the Plaintiff Corporations are run by a dishonest figure, while the Black Lung statement implies a lack of care for the safety of Mr. Murray’s employees. Even without the character statements, there would be sufficient cause for the Plaintiff Corporations to have a possible chance of success in a defamation action based on comments made about Mr. Murray

Random aside: for reasons that I do not understand, in the midst of the above paragraph the court adds a footnote explaining Dr. Evil in much greater details than seems necessary.

1 For those who might not be familiar, Dr. Evil, whose real name is Douglas Evil Powers, gained notoriety as the villain of the Austin Powers film franchise. He is a parody of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, a nemesis of James Bond. Along with his cat, Mr. Bigglesworth, a colorful supporting entourage, and a plethora of secret lairs, Dr. Evil made several attempts at taking over the world, before ultimately finding redemption by the end of the final film.

First: SPOILER ALERT. And second, I mean, sure. That's a decent summary (and I must admit I don't remember Dr. Evil even having a real name, but it's been a while since I've seen the films), but I'm not sure why this footnote is necessary in a straightforward decision to remand. Almost feels like the judge wanted to get in something oddly humorous in such a weird case.

But back to the meat of the ruling. The court says that since the statements could defame the companies in West Virginia and (whoops...) HBO and those West Virginia coal companies are incorporated in Delaware, there's no diversity jurisdiction to move the case to federal court:

Defendants’ primary contention is that the Plaintiff Corporations were not properly joined because the defamatory statements were not of and concerning the corporations, giving the corporations no possibility of asserting a right to relief. As discussed herein, this Court finds that defamatory statements made about an executive of a business may be sufficient to defame his business where the statement was made about the individual in his professional capacity and reflects negatively on the operation of the business. Therefore, the Plaintiff Corporations may have been defamed by statements made about Mr. Murray, giving them a possibility of success in this action as set forth by Ashworth, 395 F.Supp.2d at 403. Because the Plaintiff Corporations have this possibility of success, they were properly joined. This joinder destroys the diversity jurisdiction, which would have allowed a removal to this Court because the Plaintiff Corporations and Home Box Office, Inc. are all incorporated in Delaware. Therefore, this action should be remanded to state court.

All in all, a pretty straightforward decision on remanding -- and, of course, it makes no statement on the merits (or lack thereof) of the actual defamation claims. This is probably not a big deal in the overall case, as Oliver/HBO's argument is much, much stronger when it comes to whether or not his statements were defamatory (as the ACLU so nicely explained in their now-irrelevant amicus brief), but it is at least something of a setback for Oliver and HBO. And, in case you're wondering, the 4th Circuit (where this is) does not tend to allow remand orders like this to be appealed. So they're likely stuck in state court. That's a bit of a hassle for Oliver/HBO, and a bigger annoyance for reporters like myself who do have access to federal court records while state court records in West Virginia are (annoyingly) not so easy to access.

Filed Under: bob murray, diversity, dr. evil, john oliver, remand, west virginia
Companies: hbo, murray energy

North Carolina Passes An Entirely Misguided Restore Campus Free Speech Act

from the speech-is-speech dept

You will recall that we were just discussing a proposed law in Wisconsin that sought to do a number of things on college campuses, including limit the ability to protest and shout down controversial speakers, as well as mandating quite insanely that school administrations must "remain neutral" on the "controversial" topics of the day. It's a source of frustration for me that it's not immediately clear how bad an idea this is for any number of reasons. My two chief complaints about the law, built upon a legislative proposal from the Goldwater Institute, are how broad a range of topics this could conceivably cover and how it quite plainly seeks to favor one form of speech over another. Put simply, giving state governments oversight about which topics a university administration is allowed to opine while also mandating punishments for students who protest to shout down speakers is about as anti-free speech as it gets, even as the proponents of the legislation attempt to shroud themselves in that most sacred of American ideals.

Well, North Carolina also had a similar bill under consideration, and indeed the state went ahead and passed its Restore Campus Free Speech Act. When you travel to that National Review link and/or read the pull quotes below, keep in mind that these are the words of a supporter of the bill and someone, Stanley Kurtz, who worked on the original Goldwater proposal.

The North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act achieves most of what the Goldwater proposal sets out to do. It ensures that University of North Carolina policy will strongly affirm the importance of free expression. It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers whom members of the campus community wish to hear from. It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes with the free-speech rights of others, and ensures that students will be informed of those sanctions at freshman orientation. It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion and dialogue within the university itself. And it authorizes a special committee created by the Board of Regents to issue a yearly report to the public, the regents, the governor, and the legislature on the administrative handling of free-speech issues.

It all sounds so reasonable until you actually think about the implications of the law. Let's address them in order.

To start, requiring a university to affirm the importance of free expression is the kind of pablum born from trying to establish that there is a problem where one doesn't actually exist. Does anyone imagine that polling the nation's universities on this question would result in some schools saying, "Meh, free expression isn't that big a deal"? Come on.

As for disinviting speakers that "members of the campus wish to hear from", let's talk about that. First, how many members of campus are we talking about? And how are we to gauge their interest? If some tiny college group wants to invite a controversial speaker to campus to speak, where 90% of the campus doesn't want them anywhere near the campus, the administration is simply supposed to keep its hands tied? Or are the numbers something different? All of this is unclear in the law, even as it happily neuters a school's ability to manage its own campus. Why is a state legislature a better arbiter of who belongs on campus than the school itself?

Then there are the disciplinary sanctions on students that "interfere with the free-speech rights of others". This is the really silly part, because it seeks to scholastically criminalize speech in order to protect speech. The proponents of this law will want to say that this refers to students rioting, or accosting would-be invited speakers, but there are already laws on the books to prosecute those crimes. Instead, this law seeks to punish students that attempt to shut down speaking engagements via peaceful protest, which is a form of speech. The law originally required mandatory suspension from school for students who are found to have violated the law twice. The universities beat that back and had it struck, but the proponents of the bill aren't even pretending that they aren't trying to stop anything other than the speech of students, while also detailing how its newly-created committee reports will be used to simply toss out adminstrators lovers of the law don't like.

Without the mandatory suspension for a second offense, the university could conceivably undermine the law through lax enforcement. Yet it’s not as simple as that. If the university refuses to discipline shout-downs in the wake of passage of this law, there will be consequences. For one thing, the annual report of the Board of Governors will either condemn the refusal to discipline, or the committee will itself be subject to public criticism. A negative report on the administrative handling of discipline would give the Board of Regents a reason to replace administrators, and legislators a reason to cut university funds.

Punishing "shout-downs"? That's a pretty bald-faced acknowledgement that this bill will curb the free speech of students in favor of the free speech of invited speakers. In other words, this bill cuts in only one direction: students that are paying to attend school now have less speech rights than guests invited onto the campus. If that doesn't immediately demonstrate how flatly gross this bill is, you need to recalibrate your sensors.

Look, I said this in the last post, but I'll say it again: anyone that wants to say that campuses today are not as open to outside or unpopular viewpoints as they once were or should be won't get anything other than agreement for me. I tend to think the problem is overstated in certain circles, but I do agree that campuses today are generally less open-minded than they should be. But the solution to that is to win the argument via speech, not to run crying to state legislatures to simply curb the speech of others.

Filed Under: campus, free speech, goldwater proposal, north carolina, wisconsin

Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting

from the don't-count-us-out dept

As you are likely aware, we are currently facing a First Amendment fight for our life. I've spoken about the chilling effects the lawsuit has been having on our reporting -- but also have noted that we are trying to be inspired by this situation to focus more of our reporting efforts on attacks on free speech online, and to tell the stories of those who they're impacting most. As you may recall, we have already launched the crowdfunding site ISupportJournalism.com to support our ability to continue reporting on these issues, and I'm happy to announce today that we've further partnered with the Freedom of the Press Foundation and a group of other companies and organizations to fund more free speech reporting, which will now be included under a new "free speech" tab on the site. Attacks on free speech have been growing, not shrinking, and we need to shine much more light on these attacks, and we're thrilled to be able to do as much as we can. Our official announcement of the program is here:

---

For nearly two decades, Techdirt has reported extensively on issues related to free speech on the internet. Much of this coverage has been about laws that help to protect free speech, such as anti-SLAPP laws, intermediary liability protections, and fair use, among others. Over time, we’ve seen countless attempts to silence speech and undermine important protections for free speech, even as new technologies and services have risen up to provide more arenas for free speech to thrive. These attacks on free speech — including lawsuits, threats, bullying, and legislative proposals — raise serious concerns about protecting free speech online.

In January of this year, the company behind Techdirt, and two of its employees, were sued for $15 million in a lawsuit that seems specifically designed to either shut down the company or to silence reporting on matters of public interest.

The lawsuit, along with our reporting on many similar stories, motivated the Techdirt team to double down on our coverage of issues related to free speech on the internet, and the ways that it is being attacked. Going through the process ourselves has given us an even deeper appreciation for the First Amendment and the legal protections provided in states with strong anti-SLAPP laws. Similarly, we are more aware than ever before of the myriad ways in which free speech is under attack — not just directly, but indirectly as well, such as via threats against third parties and platforms to stifle speech.

It has also given us greater recognition that many people — even journalists, lawyers and politicians — may not fully understand these issues, what legal protections there are, where those protections are under attack, and where they could be strengthened. Many are also not aware of the massive cost attacks on free speech have, and just how many people they are impacting.

This has inspired us to work with the Freedom of the Press Foundation to put this project together, which will enable us to focus even more reporting resources on covering threats to free speech in the US and around the globe, and to tell the stories of the chilling effects created when free speech is attacked. We are thankful that a number of prominent organizations and foundations have also stepped up to sponsor this effort, including Automattic, the Charles Koch Foundation, Craig Newmark's CraigConnects and Union Square Ventures*. Between all supporting organizations, more than $250,000 has been committed so far to further reporting on free speech. We hope you’ll look forward to much more reporting on issues related to free speech online.

* Techdirt maintains full editorial control over all content.

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, reporting

Federal Court Strips Immunity From Sheriff Who Tried To Silence A Critic By Having Him Arrested

from the his-own-worst-enemy dept

Late last summer, a Louisiana sheriff decided to use a long-dormant, unconstitutional criminal libel law to track down an online critic and search his home. Not that anyone had really been using the law to criminally charge people for libel, but if you don't take a bad law off the books, sooner or later someone's going to abuse it.

Sheriff Jerry Larpenter was the abuser. A blogger who had problems with the parish's incestuous relationship with its insurance provider -- a firm that employed Sheriff Larpenter's wife -- was the target. Larpenter apparently tired of the blog's well-investigated criticism and found a judge compliant enough to sign a warrant for him. (The sheriff bypassed the on-duty judge and had it signed by the off-duty judge, suggesting he's engaged in more than one inappropriately-cozy relationship with a government entity.) He went to the blogger's house and seized five phones and two computers, one of which belonged to the blogger's children.

The judge who signed the warrant unsurprisingly found the warrant to be valid when challenged by the blogger. A Louisiana appeals court, however, saw things differently. In a unanimous ruling, the three judges declared the warrant to be unconstitutional. The ruling said the criminal defamation law could not possibly apply in this situation, as the target of the alleged libel (Tony Alford -- parish insurance provider and board commissioner) was a public figure.

This opened the door for a civil rights lawsuit against the sheriff. In a decision [PDF] handed down late last month, federal judge Lance M. Africk strips Sheriff Larpenter of his qualified immunity. The first sentence makes it clear just how far out of the bounds of constitutionality Sheriff Larpenter has wandered. (via the Volokh Conspiracy)

Some qualified immunity cases are hard. This case is not one of them.

Sheriff Larpenter tried to make the case about town insurance agent Tony Alford, who he maintained filed the original defamation claim. The court doesn't care for this argument much for two reasons. First, Alford is indeed privately employed by the insurance company, but he is also the president of the local board of commissioners and the company he works for provides insurance coverage for Terrebonne Parish. It points to the Louisiana Appeals Court decision finding the warrant unconstitutional, which directly addresses the issue and finds Tony Alford to be a public figure for the purposes of defamation proceedings.

But that's merely the procedural part of finding out whether Louisiana's outdated criminal libel law could possibly apply. The better stuff comes later in the decision.

The Court concludes that the facts and circumstances known to Sheriff Larpenter at the time that he directed Detective Prestenbach to get the search warrant for the Andersons' home would not have led a prudent person to believe that the items sought by the warrant constituted evidence of a crime, because no prudent person would believe that Jennifer Anderson's statements about President Alford could constitutionally form the basis of a crime. President Alford is a public official, and Jennifer Anderson's statements on Exposedat and the John Turner Facebook profile addressed core concerns about his fitness for public office. The complaint shows that Sheriff Larpenter was aware of the specific content of Jennifer Anderson's statements about President Alford from the very beginnings of the investigation.

[...]

Moreover, the complaint shows that the criminal investigation into Jennifer Anderson's statements did not uncover a scintilla of evidence to suggest that Jennifer Anderson's speech—regardless of its veracity—was made with actual malice. As such, it is not surprising that Detective Prestenbach's affidavit in support of the search warrant lacked any factual allegations to support an assertion of actual malice. In fact, Detective Prestenbach's acknowledgment in the affidavit that Exposedat featured public documents to support the claims made on it suggested just the opposite: even if false, the statements were not made with actual malice.

[...]

As the Louisiana Court of Appeal concluded, Jennifer Anderson's speech "is not a criminally actionable offense"—and any prudent person would have known so. Accepting the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the Andersons, Sheriff Larpenter's directive to Detective Prestenbach to obtain a search warrant for the Andersons' home resulted in a violation of the Andersons' Fourth Amendment rights, as the warrant lacked the requisite probable cause.

The sheriff tried to argue he "reasonably relied" on the magistrate's judgment in approving the warrant. This attempt to pluck a "good faith" defense out of a bad faith effort goes nowhere.

The Court notes that Detective Prestenbach's affidavit for the search warrant for the Andersons' home—a warrant he obtained at the direction of Sheriff Larpenter—failed to mention the material fact that President Alford serves as the head of the Terrebonne Parish Levee and Conservation District Board of Commissioners—and hence is a public official. Notwithstanding, a reasonably well-trained officer in Sheriff Larpenter's position would have known that Detective Prestenbach's affidavit would inevitably fail to establish probable cause, because longstanding U.S. Supreme Court and Louisiana Supreme Court case law precluded the application of § 14:47 to Jennifer Anderson's statements. "[A]s an officer charged with enforcing Louisiana law," Sheriff Larpenter "can be presumed to know the law" of Louisiana, including the law's well-established constitutional reach. Rykers v. Alford, 832 F.2d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 1987). More to the point, "[p]olice officers can be expected to have a modicum of knowledge regarding the fundamental rights of citizens." See also Saldana v. Garza, 684 F.2d 1159, 1165 (5th Cir. 1982). In this instance, a judge's issuance and affirmance of the search warrant for the Andersons' home will not shield Sheriff Larpenter from potential civil liability for his conduct.

The sheriff will also have to answer to First Amendment retaliation claims. Larpenter argued the injury suffered by the blogger was minimal, perhaps even nonexistent. Again, the court finds little it likes about the sheriff's spin.

Sheriff Larpenter attempts to minimize Jennifer Anderson's injury as a result of his actions. In his view, because the Andersons got their property back and because the property was never searched by law enforcement—the Andersons' computers and cellphones were impounded and sealed after their seizure while the Andersons challenged the legality of the search warrant—Jennifer Anderson did not suffer an injury sufficient to chill a person of ordinary firmness. However, Sheriff Larpenter is missing the bigger picture: the injury was inflicted at the time of the execution of the search warrant. By searching the Andersons' home and seizing the Andersons' property in the first place, Sheriff Larpenter sent a message to Jennifer Anderson—a message that he also allegedly told a news outlet and broadcast to his community: "If you're gonna lie about me and make it under a fictitious name, I'm gonna come after you." To the Court, that message—if you speak ill of the sheriff of your parish, then the sheriff will direct his law enforcement resources toward forcibly entering your home and taking your belongings under the guise of a criminal investigation—is inseparable from the injury and would certainly chill anyone of ordinary firmness from engaging in similar constitutionally protected speech in the future.

Larpenter now must face this legal action on his own, with no shield between him and the allegations. The facts of the case are pretty damning and Larpenter's best bet now is to find some way to settle before the monetary pain gets worse.

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, immunity, jerry larpenter, louisiana, online critic, tony alford

Deputy Attorney General Walks Back Attorney General's Threat To Journalists

from the house-divided-against-itself--FOUR-MORE-YEARS!-FOUR-MORE-YEARS! dept

Because this administration rarely seems to agree with itself, another recent pronouncement is being rolled back by someone within the same agency that made statements to the opposite effect only days earlier. Let me explain:

On Friday, Jeff Sessions held a press briefing on national security leaks, stating the DOJ was aggressively pursuing several leak investigations. That these investigations would most likely discourage actual whistleblowers was assumed, but not stated. Sessions didn't directly state he was rolling back previous DOJ policy to start targeting journalists who published leaked documents, but he did say this:

I have listened to career investigators and prosecutors about how to most successfully investigate and prosecute these matters. At their suggestion, one of the things we are doing is reviewing policies affecting media subpoenas. We respect the important role that the press plays and will give them respect, but it is not unlimited. They cannot place lives at risk with impunity. We must balance their role with protecting our national security and the lives of those who serve in our intelligence community, the armed forces, and all law abiding Americans.

This appeared to indicate the DOJ was taking the gloves off and would be going after journalists who refused to reveal their sources. Sessions refused to answer a direct question about the issue before ending the press conference, echoing his non-answer on the same subject during his confirmation hearing.

Two days later, the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, has walked back some of what was implied during Friday's press briefing.

Speaking to Fox News Sunday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein emphasized that the department’s renewed effort to prosecute leaks of classified information was not aimed at the news media.

“We’re after the leakers, not the journalists,” he said. “We don’t prosecute journalists for doing their jobs.“

It's only a partial rollback. Rosenstein wouldn't 100% rule out journalists being charged with crimes if the publication of documents was somehow criminal. (Not sure how often that would actually be the case, but the DOJ has a pretty vivid imagination sometimes.) But it sounds like the DOJ isn't going to start pushing for contempt charges if journalists refuse to turn over info when subpoenaed.

Of course, this could all change again in the next few days. The Trump Administration has been nothing if not schizophrenic, with officials offering contradictory statements and the president's own tweets/statements routinely refuted by department heads, cabinet members, and the government's lawyers.

Filed Under: chilling effects, doj, first amendment, free speech, freedom of the press, intimidation, jeff sessions, rod rosenstein, subpoenas

Jeff Sessions Suggests He's Steering The DOJ Towards Prosecuting More Journalists

from the publish-and-die dept

Jeff Sessions and the DOJ are back to threatening leakers again. It seems counterproductive, considering each new threat of leak investigations does little to stem the steady flow of leaks. But the new DOJ boss seems ready to go further than his predecessors.

Having already expressed an interest in taking care of Obama's unfinished business by going after Wikileaks, Sessions now appears to be headed towards threatening journalism and the First Amendment itself. This would be a new direction for the Justice Department. A 2013 report by the DOJ stated it was unwilling to consider the punishment of journalists during leak investigations, except as a last resort.

As an initial matter, it bears emphasis that it has been and remains the Department's policy that members of the news media will not be subject to prosecution based solely on newsgathering activities. Furthermore, in light of the importance of the constitutionally protected newsgathering process, the Department views the use of tools to seek evidence from or involving the news media as an extraordinary measure.

Journalists have been subpoenaed before in leak investigations, but the DOJ has generally been unwilling to jail journalists for refusing to hand over information on their sources. Jeff Sessions, however, seems less concerned about using the weight of the law against members of the press.

In his written remarks before a press briefing on national security leaks, Sessions said this:

I have listened to career investigators and prosecutors about how to most successfully investigate and prosecute these matters. At their suggestion, one of the things we are doing is reviewing policies affecting media subpoenas. We respect the important role that the press plays and will give them respect, but it is not unlimited. They cannot place lives at risk with impunity. We must balance their role with protecting our national security and the lives of those who serve in our intelligence community, the armed forces, and all law abiding Americans.

This strongly suggests the 2013 guidelines on "new media" will be rewritten by Sessions' DOJ to justify increased prosecutions of journalists. This is a dangerous step forward, especially in an era where leaks seem to be coming faster than journalists can publish them. Throwing a few journalists in jail for contempt creates a severe chilling effect. Even the enhanced threat of prosecution may be enough to discourage journalists from publishing leaked docs or working with government sources.

Sessions was asked directly if this administration would prosecute journalists. He refused to answer the question before ending the briefing. This would be the second time Sessions has dodged this question -- the first being Sen. Klobluchar's question along the same lines during his confirmation hearing. What better way to send a chilling message to journalists then telling them their freedom might be at stake as they attend a press briefing.

Filed Under: chilling effects, doj, first amendment, free speech, jeff sessions, journalism, sources, subpoenas

ACLU To Court: It's Legal To Tell Bob To Eat Shit

from the eat-shit,-bob dept

So we fully expected the ongoing to lawsuit filed by coal boss Bob Murray against comedian John Oliver to lead to some truly captivating moments (it already has!), but the West Virginia chapter of the ACLU has leapt into the case with wild abandon and made sure that people were paying attention. If you somehow missed it, Oliver did a segment on coal jobs a month and a half ago, with a particular focus on the head of Murray Energy, a character named Bob Murray. Part of the reason for the focus on Murray was that Murray's lawyers threatened to sue Oliver... and then followed through on the threat with an actual lawsuit that was even sillier than we expected. Last we'd written about it, the two sides were wrangling over Murray demanding a gag order on Oliver, while Oliver tried to remove the case to federal court, rather than state court. As we predicted, Murray's lawyers have now been trying to move the case back to state court and papers have been flying back and forth about both that and Murray Energy's renewed desire for a gag order (the original had been filed in state court, and then again in the federal court). We didn't think any of those filings were interesting enough to write about yet.

But, have no fear, in what had been turning out to be a surprisingly mundane affair so far, the ACLU of West Virginia has decided to leap in and give it about the level of respect that the case deserves -- and, yes, as about a dozen people have told me, the ACLU quotes me (yes, me) in its filing. The ACLU has asked the court if it can file an amicus brief, specifically against the gag order Murray is seeking and in favor of dismissing the case and slapping Murray's lawyers with Rule 11 sanctions for bad legal behavior. It's... a bit uncommon for anyone to file amicus briefs at the district court level. It's not unheard of, but not particularly common. And... it also seems a bit early in the process for any amicus to get involved, but the ACLU of West Virginia seems to feel "why the hell not?"

And, frankly, "why the hell not?" appears to be the motivating factor in many of the decisions made by Jamie Lynn Crofts of the ACLU of West Virginia. Indeed, Jamie -- who, with this filing has quickly climbed up many rungs on my "favorite 1st Amendment lawyers" list -- appears to be channeling her inner John Oliver in much of the filing, as it appears to treat the filing in about the same manner with which Oliver approaches the subjects he satirizes on his show: it's detailed, thorough, hilarious and razer sharp as it slices and dices its subject. Just take a gander at the table of contents on the proposed amicus brief here (or check out the full filing).

If you somehow can't see that... well, gosh, figure out some way to see it. It starts out normally enough with the typically expected first few sections, but then we hit section II.B. which is titled: "The Ridiculous Case at Hand." At that point, my head tilts bit to the side, thinking "that's not quite what I'm used to seeing, even if I agree...". And then it's Section III where Crofts goes all in. Oh, hell, in case a few of you can't see it above, I'll just repeat it here in text because, goodness, it's too wonderful not to:

III. Anyone Can Legally Say "Eat Shit, Bob!"

A. Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is Ridiculous. Courts Can't Tell Media Companies How to Report, Bob.

1. All of John Oliver's Speech Was Protected by the First Amendment. You Can't Sue People for Being Mean to You, Bob.
2. Plaintiff's Requested Injunction is Clearly Unconstitutiona. You Can't Get a Court Order Telling the Press How to Cover Stories, Bob.

So, yeah. That's... going for it. And you might think "well, that's enough right there in the table of contents" but the brief itself has plenty of fun too -- though it admits "Although this brief pokes fun at the absurdity of this case, the legal issues raised by it are anything but comical."

But, the brief sure is comical. It starts off by pointing out Murray's history of defamation lawsuits against media organizations when Murray doesn't like their reporting, calling it Murray's "favorite hobby":

It is a basic concept of free speech that you do not get to sue media organizations because you don’t like their coverage. However, this is apparently a difficult concept for Plaintiffs to grasp. It appears that Bob Murray’s favorite hobby is suing and/or threatening to sue people for making political statements he disagrees with. See Murray v. Tarley, No. C2-01-693, 2002 WL 484537 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 21, 2002) (dismissing defamation action); Murray v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., No. 02 BE 45, 2004 WL 333250 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2004) (same); Murray v. The HuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 21 F. Supp. 3d 879 (S.D. Ohio 2014) (same); Murray v. Chagrin Valley Publishing Co., 25 N.E.3d 1111 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014) (affirming dismissal); Murray v. Moyers, No. 2:14-CV-02334, 2015 WL 5626509 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 24, 2015) (dismissing defamation claim); Murray Energy Holdings Co. v. Mergermarket USA, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-2844, 2016 WL 3365422 (S.D. Ohio June 17, 2016) (same); Murray Energy Holdings Co. v. Bloomberg, No. 2:15- CV-2845 (S.D. Ohio June 17, 2016) (same); Jonathan Peters, A Coal Magnate’s Latest Lawsuit Was Tossed—But Ohio Can Do More to Defend Free Expression, Columbia Journalism Review (May 28, 2014), http://archives.cjr.org/united_states_project/murray_energy_defamation_ lawsuits_huffington_post.php). After this long list of losses in Ohio, it appears that Bob Murray has now decided to try his luck with abusing West Virginia’s court system.

Then the brief summarizes the case at hand, bullet-point style, calling it (accurately!) a "petty list of grievances" and pointing out some of the more absurd claims in the lawsuit which, as many people noted, read more like a political screed than an actual defamation lawsuit. Included in that list of petty grievances, of course, are the following two:

“Defendants [described] Bob Murray as someone who ‘looks like a geriatric Dr. Evil’ and arranging for a staff member to dress up in a squirrel costume and deliver the message “Eat Shit, Bob!” to Bob Murray.

“[A]fter the live taping, Defendant Oliver exclaimed to the audience that having someone in a squirrel costume tell Bob Murray to ‘Eat Shit’ was a ‘dream come true.’”

Keep that in mind, because it'll come back again. Oh, and after that second point, there's actually a little footnote marker, with the footnote reading (I kid you not): "Everyone is allowed to have dreams." Indeed. And I kinda get the feeling that one of Jamie Lynn Crofts' dreams was to be able to file a brief like this.

The brief then points out the ridiculousness (as we did in our post) of the idea that Murray "had" to file this lawsuit because after Oliver broadcast his show, Murray had no way to get his side of the story out. Except, well, he did:

Ironically, the Complaint outrageously claims that Defendants “attacked [Bob Murray] in a forum in which he had no opportunity to defend himself, and so he has brought this suit to try to set the record straight.” ... In direct contravention to this claim, Plaintiff Murray Energy sent out a press release about the case the very day it was filed.... Two days later, Bob Murray was on national television calling John Oliver a “radical elitist.” Matthew Wisner, Robert Murray on John Oliver: Radical Elitists’ Broadcast Operative, FOX NEWS, http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/06/23/robert-murray-on-johnoliver- radical-elitists-broadcast-operative.html. No other opportunity to defend himself, indeed.

Sarcasm in a legal brief? Lovely.

And... then we get to me being quoted. I was particularly proud of this line in my earlier post, so I'm glad someone noticed it, even if she calls us TECH DIRT rather than just plain old Techdirt.

The Complaint also interestingly claims that “nothing has ever stressed [Bob Murray] more than [John Oliver’s] vicious and untruthful attack.” ... As one media outlet asked, “[I]s he really saying that a late night British comedian on a premium channel has caused him more stress than the time that one of his mines collapsed and killed a group of his employees? If so . . . that’s . . . weird.” Mike Masnick, Bob Murray’s Lawsuit Against John Oliver Is Even Sillier Than We Expected, TECH DIRT (June 23, 2017),

I'm blushing.

Anyway, onto Section III as highlited in the Table of Contents above, starting with "Anyone Can Legally Say 'Eat Shit, Bob!'"

This case is beyond meritless. It is offensive to the very ideals of free speech embodied in the First Amendment. The fact that Plaintiffs filed this case is ridiculous enough; but, to pour gasoline on the fire, plaintiffs’ counsel has also filed a motion asking the court to make John Oliver not say mean things about him anymore.... It is frankly shocking that Plaintiffs were able to find attorneys willing to file a lawsuit that is so obviously unconstitutional.

Great start... but then it gets even better:

It is apt that one of Plaintiffs’ objections to the show is about a human-sized squirrell named Mr. Nutterbutter, because this case is nuts. Which also begs the question: is Mr. Nutterbutter one of the 50 Doe Defendants included in this action?

I cannot stop laughing. That two paragraph section is just... perfect. Dismissive first paragraph. Second paragraph starts off with a nice burn tying Mr. Nutterbutter to "nuts" but then, the second sentence is what makes this a piece of art.

And we're not done yet. After a moderately more conventional discussion on why you can't sue people just for being mean to you, along with an explanation of the nature of satire, Crofts spends a bit of time on the allegation that it's somehow defamatory to compare Murray to Dr. Evil from the Austin Powers movies, noting:

And with regard to the Dr. Evil remark, it should be remembered that truth is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation. E.g. Syl. Pt. 1, Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 173 W. Va. 699, 699 (1984).

Um. Damn. Yes, that image is in the filing right after claiming that truth is an absolute defense. And... not to be missed, right after the "with regard to the Dr. Evil remark" and right under that image, there's this amazing footnote:

It should be noted that the very mean comparison arose from both a striking physical resemblance between the two characters and a statement by Plaintiff’s General Counsel with an uncanny similarity to statements made by a more youthful Dr. Evil. Compare Coal Operator Sues Beacon Journal Over Portrayal of Him in Article, ATHENS NEWS, (Jan. 29, 2001), https://www.athensnews.com/news/local/coal-operator-sues-beacon-journal-over-portrayal-of-himin/ article_24549e9b-de35-5b4c-b3c6-2ad29b33f694.html (Plaintiff’s General Counsel noting that although he could not legally demand one billion dollars, the figure did reflect the potential damages of the article that gave rise to that suit—this can reasonably be interpreted to mean Plaintiff’s General Counsel wanted to demand one billion dollars); with Pierre Pavia, Dr Evil in 1 Million Dollars, YOUTUBE, (Jul 11, 2008), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIs (a young . . . er Dr. Evil demanding “one million dollars,” “one hundred billion dollars,” and “one billion gajillion fafillion shabadoodalooyim[inaudible]million yen”).

And, yes, that link does go to a nice montage of Dr. Evil's demands.

In discussing Murray's request for a gag order, Crofts points out:

Bob Murray thinks John Oliver was mean to him, and he doesn’t want him to be mean again. While that is sad for Bob Murray, it is unconstitutional for a court to order such relief.

Oh, and more legal filing comedy gold here:

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants will use their “unique powers” to “access . . . millions of West Virginians, to bias the potential jurors who will determine their fate.” Pl’s Mem. at 3. (These special powers must include magic, as West Virginia has under 2 million residents.)

It also notes that Oliver, HBO and the other defendants have all been silent about the case already... while Murray has been appearing on TV and issuing press releases about it, raising questions about why Murray is so desperate to get a gag order on Oliver.

This is... gold. Of course, it's unclear if the court will care. Again, amicus briefs are fairly rare in district courts, and quite rare this early in the proceeding, especially when there's nothing new or unique about the case. It's not even clear if the court will officially allow the brief. Indeed, some district courts actually actively dislike amicus briefs -- and at least some judges might not appreciate the joking tone here (even if we do). Perhaps Crofts and the ACLU of West Virginia figured that even if the judge isn't a fan, "why the hell not" and ran with it. While the court may not appreciate it, I'm sure plenty of folks here on Techdirt will.

Oh, and in case you were wondering: did Crofts have any assistance in writing the brief, she has revealed her assistant on Twitter:

Filed Under: bob murray, defamation, eat shit bob, first amendment, free speech, jamie lynn crofts, john oliver, satire
Companies: aclu, murray energy

Court Rules Temporary Ban Of Facebook Commenter By Gov't Official Violates The First Amendment

from the restrain-yourself-from-restraining-others dept

A federal judge has ruled public officials can't ban the public from interacting with official social media accounts, something that obviously has implications for the recently-filed suit by Twitter users blocked by the president's account.

Brian Davison filed a pro se lawsuit against Phyllis Randall, the Chair of the Loudon County Board of Supervisors, after she banned him from her Facebook page and deleted his critical comments. The decision wasn't an easy one for the court, as Venkat Balasubramani points out. The court had to take into account several determining factors before arriving at its First Amendment violation conclusion.

The court’s findings of fact regarding the defendant’s social media activities include:

• She had a campaign page (“Friends of Phyllis Randall”), and the day before she was sworn into office, defendant asked her constituents to visit her official page;
• She created the Facebook page outside the County’s channels, and her page will not revert to the county after she leaves office;
• She’s listed as a “government official” in the about section;
• She routinely uses the page for official proclamations and encourages constituents to contact her through the page (so official records are kept);
• She addresses her constituents through her posts and also submits posts “on behalf of the Loudon County Board of Supervisors”;
• She engages with constituents in the comments section.

The court also had to determine whether Randall was acting in her official capacity when moderating comments on the Facebook page. The court found Randall was acting under color of law, which suggested banning of commenters (on a page where she directly asked for comments on issues) violated Davison's First Amendment rights.

Not every moderation move is a First Amendment violation -- even on official government rep pages and even when done under color of law. But the reasons behind Randall's banning of Davison's participation moved it into unconstitutional territory.

Specifically, the court says it’s clear plaintiff was banned because defendant was offended, and (citing Tam) this is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Apparently, Defendant testified she banned Davison because she decided “decided at that moment that if [Plaintiff] were a type of person that would make comments about people’s family members, then maybe [Defendant] didn’t want [Plaintiff] to be commenting on [her] site.”

Randall said the violation shouldn't matter because it was brief: just a 12-hour ban. But the court reminds Randall that Constitutional violations are still violations, no matter how long they last. And the context of the banning harms the sort of speech the First Amendment is expressly designed to protect: criticism of government entities. From the decision [PDF]:

If the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence makes anything clear, it is that speech may not be disfavored by the government simply because it offends. Here, as discussed above, Defendant acted in her governmental capacity. Defendant’s offense at Plaintiff’s views was therefore an illegitimate basis for her actions – particularly given that Plaintiff earned Defendant’s ire by criticizing the County government. Indeed, the suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is the quintessential form of viewpoint discrimination against which the First Amendment guards.

This is the new reality for public officials. The internet is an amazing platform for two-way communication with constituents. But it's not something that can be treated as less "real" than press conferences or other real-world activities. Unconstitutional suppression of criticism is just as real when it's performed via Facebook moderation. Anyone assuming otherwise is likely going to find themselves in court.

Filed Under: block lists, first amendment, followers, free speech, politicians, social media