I wouldn't give this good odds for cert since it was so specific to New Mexico's language. Possibly ripe for review en banc though, but I don't know if a petition asking for it has been filed, and they aren't always granted. In fact, in most circuits, rehearings are quite rare.
Yes, in theory, they could write a statute that looks more like California's. But I don't know how likely that is, it won't help in this case, and it really shouldn't be necessary.
This is a poor decision by the court. But there are a lot more likely reasons for it to have gotten it wrong than corruption. Maybe the lawyering was bad. Maybe they had bad clerks. Maybe they just didn't have the judicial imagination to see what the effects would be. Plus it's a pretty progressive thing, with significant effects, to allow the anti-SLAPP law to operate in federal court, and there's often a lot of inertia that makes courts resist doing things that so change the status quo. So condemn the judges' conclusion, as it's warranted, but think twice before condemning THEM, because there's absolutely no evidence to support such disparagement of the independent federal judiciary.
This is a fair point. But it's an odd situation: I think much of the legislative glee behind the law *is* to stick it Facebook, whom everyone is mad at for all the election stuff. And it's just weird that Facebook is running around being masochistically obtuse by saying that they're cool with it. (As Mike speculates in his post, Facebook may really not get Section 230 and think they are fine. Or they think maybe it's better to support this than whatever Congress might cook up next (although frankly I think the first scenario is more likely).)
But I wrote the post this way because I know there's legislative animus against Facebook, and I suspect that many think that SESTA is being driven by legislative animus (and I don't think they are wrong). I had considered writing the post using Google as the example big company instead, because there's legislative animus against them too, but Google is less in the news these days, and people's own use of Google doesn't frame the Section 230 issue as clearly as people's use of Facebook does.
On the post: Tenth Circuit Issues A Troubling Ruling Limiting New Mexico's Anti-SLAPP Statute In Federal Court
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Tenth Circuit Issues A Troubling Ruling Limiting New Mexico's Anti-SLAPP Statute In Federal Court
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Tenth Circuit Issues A Troubling Ruling Limiting New Mexico's Anti-SLAPP Statute In Federal Court
Re:
On the post: Section 230 Isn't About Facebook, It's About You
Re: Re: Re: glad it's facebook fighting
But I wrote the post this way because I know there's legislative animus against Facebook, and I suspect that many think that SESTA is being driven by legislative animus (and I don't think they are wrong). I had considered writing the post using Google as the example big company instead, because there's legislative animus against them too, but Google is less in the news these days, and people's own use of Google doesn't frame the Section 230 issue as clearly as people's use of Facebook does.
Next >>