I’ve been banging the drum about the need for a federal anti-SLAPP law for a long time now, and one has just been proposed. Call your Congresspeople!
More on the bill from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
test print. 9x12”
The drumbeat of legal threats signals a potentially ominous trend for journalists during Trump’s second term in office. Litigation is costly and time-consuming. Most news organizations will look to settle rather than face months—more likely years—of discovery and depositions, plus significant legal fees.
“It is both conscious and unconscious. Journalists at smaller outlets know very well that the costs for their organization to defend themselves could mean bankruptcy. Even journalists at larger outlets don’t want to burden themselves or their employees with lawsuits. It puts another layer of influence into the journalistic process,” [Anne Champion] said.
Perhaps the CJR editors decided it went without saying, but it feels worth mentioning that — if Trump’s appointments go as planned — he will have the entire judicial branch to bring to bear on journalists, not just his wacky lawyer neighbor.
silver lining: it was awfully thoughtful of all these boston college administrations to draw the attention of a group of young, energetic, politically active students to last year's "tent ordinance" that cruelly targets the unhoused and is now being used to crack down on speech
Coercive force will not make anybody happy because it will not accomplish anyone's goals, even those who most want to see the protesters gone.
it is extremely funny to me that a lot of the people who want to slash or repeal Section 230 are the same people condemning NPR's Katherine Maher for her past comments they think are "anti-First Amendment"
in those comments she is actually describing the free speech protections afforded by Section 230 (although Rufo et al have ignored where she said those protections were "very important" and instead spun her comments as though she was criticizing it)
slashing or repealing 230 is the real anti-free speech issue here; certainly not Maher's comments supporting it