General Law and Lawsuits
https://lawandcrime.com/first-amendment ... amendment/
A judge in Los Angeles on Wednesday tossed a lawsuit filed by former representative Katie Hill (D) over a series of nude and compromising photographs published by a British tabloid.
According to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the Daily Mail was protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when they chose to ran those racy and controversial images in October 2019–which ultimately led to the rising star resigning from office in disgrace amidst an ethics probe into her relationship with a staffer.
Judge Yolanda Orozco ruled in the publication’s favor after they successfully raised an anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP) defense based on a California law which prohibits lawsuits designed to chill free speech.
“Courts employ a two-step process to evaluate anti-SLAPP motions” Orozco noted. “To invoke the protections of the statute, the defendant must first show that the challenged lawsuit arises from protected activity, such as an act in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech. From this fact, courts ‘presume the purpose of the action was to chill the defendant’s exercise of First Amendment rights. It is then up to the plaintiff to rebut the presumption by showing a reasonable probability of success on the merits.’”
(Maybe someone more versed in the law than I can suggest a better title. This is the second or third time I've had a hard time finding an existing thread to place something about the law in.)
1
vote
Valeria Ceban Belostecinic
shared this idea
Closing out due to age of request, that it was fixed, or that it won't be implemented. Cleaning up our votes to make sure we are focusing on the greatest impact.