Bloggers Rally to Defense of Defamation Defendant

I have previously written about Crystal Cox, a self-styled investigative blogger, who found herself on the receiving end of a judgment for $2.5 million after she posted caustic comments about a bankruptcy trustee.  You can find the prior post here.   One aspect of the District Court's opinion which raised my eyebrows was the court's stingy application of the media privilege.    Under the District Court's view, most bloggers would not be entitled to some of the protections available to the professional media.   

Apparently I was not the only one who thought this to be a strange result.   UCLA Professor Eugene Volokh, who blogs at the Volokh Conspiracy is representing Ms. Cox on a pro bono basis in her appeal to the Ninth Circuit.   Scotusblog.com, the leading Supreme Court blog, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press have weighed in with amicus briefs.    

In an unusual twist, the Plaintiff sought to have the Sheriff levy upon and sell the Defendant's right to appeal.   By auctioning off the right to appeal, the Plaintiff could effectively insulate its judgment from judicial review.   Prof. Volokh successfully obtained an order from the District Court blocking this relief.   You can read about it in his own words here. 

I am pleased that the Plaintiff's nefarious tactic was rebuffed and that there are some serious amici weighing in.   This case raises important issues about the First Amendment protections applicable to the citizen media.

Does the First Amendment Apply to Lowe's Parking Lot?

Lowes First Amendment Opinion


Have you ever been pissed off at a business and decided to take action by standing in its parking lot, holding up a protest sign?

Me neither, but apparently Anthony V. Laterza did, but then the cops came and the hassling began and then the whole lawsuit stuff started.

It all wound up in front of Judge Marra, who had to grapple with the question of First Amendment rights on private property, throwing us all the way back to law school again:

By removing Plaintiff from the parking lot, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has denied him his First Amendment right to free speech and he seeks a declaratory judgment to allow him to continue to exercise his right of free speech in the parking lot without facing the threat of arrest. (Compl. ¶ ¶ 28-32.)

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings, claiming that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a prohibition on government action and Plaintiff has no First Amendment right to picket on Defendant’s private property. In addition, Defendant has filed a motion to stay discovery until a ruling has been entered on the motion for judgment on the pleadings. In response, Plaintiff contends that he should be able to develop the facts of the case through discovery to prove any differences between the instant action and the cases cited by Defendant.

Boy this is an interesting question.

Let's see how the Court ruled:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as a matter of law. Allowing Plaintiff to amend his complaint would be futile. Plaintiff cannot in good faith claim that the parking lot in question was public, not private property. As a result, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery is denied as moot.

Ok, for some reason I thought there were more considerations than that -- distributing flyers in malls etc?