* Long set-ups usually result in fewer responses, but we’re gonna try anyway. The Tribune has a very well-written, balanced piece on the state’s new “Citizens Participation Act,” which a pro-life group claims was misused against it. The whole thing started over the nasty fight about a Planned Parenthood center in Aurora. The right-to-life groups were doing their best to stop it and Planned Parenthood retaliated with some harsh words…
Scheidler sued Steve Trombley, president of Planned Parenthood of Illinois, alleging libel for saying to the Aurora City Council, and in an ad in a local newspaper, that the [Pro-Life Action League] has “a well-documented history of violence.”
* Planned Parenthood’s response to the suit…
“Illinois’ Citizen Participation Act . . . specifically protects the constitutional right to engage in the very type of speech that is at issue here,” Planned Parenthood said in a court filing.
* Here’s the relevant statutory language…
Acts in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association, and participation in government are immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose, except when not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, or outcome.
* More on Planned Parenthood’s response…
It argues for dismissal on a variety of familiar grounds: because the allegedly defamatory statements were true, because they can be given an innocent construction, because they didn’t even refer to the individual plaintiffs.
But leading the list is the assertion that the Citizen Participation Act gives Planned Parenthood “absolute immunity against plaintiffs’ claims.” That’s because the organization was campaigning for local political support, and the CAP — to quote it — provides that “acts in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association, and participation in government . . . are immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose” [emphasis added]
* Even the sponsor is a bit surprised that the law was used this way…
Illinois State Sen. John Cullerton called himself a Planned Parenthood supporter but acknowledged its use of the act was not what he had in mind when he pushed for it to become law. Still it is the judge’s decision as to “whether or not that law is appropriate to the facts,” he said.
* A bit more background…
[David Ardia, director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard Law School] said anti-SLAPP laws got their start in the 1970s as environmentalists spoke out against big developers. “If we didn’t have them, we would have significantly reduced public speech on many, many important public issues,” Ardia said.
* Question: Does the state law go too far, or is it necessary to stop lawsuits which can chill free speech? Explain fully, please.
LIVE session coverage...
- Plutocrat03 - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 11:46 am:
Free speech is the cornerstone of our society.
People or organizations with money are trying to use all tools at their disposal to squelch speech which is perceived to be injurious to them.
Sen. Terry Link is threatening a lawsuit because the Lake County Republican organization asserts that the Senator committed a violation of campaign finance disclosure law. Is it a threat to free speech or a defense from libel?
Last week a blogger reported that Steve Jobs had a heart attack and published that information. Apple stock took a hit and the information was found to be false. Do the people who suffered a loss have recourse? That blogger is also under SEC review. Is regulation of that kind of speech appropriate?
Public officials are threatening arrests in Missouri if people state false things about Sen. Obama. I bet that put a chill on free speech.
New technology changes the way we communicate. Existing laws may need to be tweaked, but we must be able to maintain our right to speak out freely.
- KGB - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 11:53 am:
You’re right, long set-ups will not get you responses. I started reading the thing and then just came here to let you know I won’t be finishing it. Sorry.
- grand old partisan - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 11:59 am:
“…That’s because the organization was campaigning for local political support, and the CAP — to quote it — provides that “acts in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association, and participation in government . . . are immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose”
Well, please, allow me to finish quoting the rest of the act, which states that it doesn’t apply when said speech is “not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, or outcome.”
‘Local political support’ is not the same as a ‘favorable government action.’ The law doesn’t apply in this case.
- OneMan - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 12:01 pm:
I wrote about this a bit back in March
http://htsblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/does-citizen-participation-act-mean.html
It would be interesting to see if PP’s view stands how hard it will be to get folks to sit on school boards and the like…
I said you were cheating on your wife but I did it in order to move a legitimate political issue (lets say where a High School is located) so it’s all cool.
- Carl Nyberg - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 12:07 pm:
It seems like the law says that if the speech is part of a campaign to get the government to do something (or not do something) can include deliberately untrue statements.
I would not favor a law that protects defamatory statements.
And I say that as someone currently defending myself against a bogus defamation suit.
What we need are significant penalties for bad-faith defamation lawsuits. Once bad-faith plaintiffs find their personal assets exposed to being awarded to defendants and lawyers filing bad-faith complaints lose their law licenses then we’ll see fewer bad-faith defamation complaints.
Right now, the plaintiff has no skin in the game. The plaintiff–especially plaintiffs who can get legal representation from law firms that can pass along the bills to the gov’t–can file bad-faith defamation suits without taking on any personal risk.
Illinois judges and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission just don’t do their jobs on holding these bad-faith plaintiffs accountable.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 12:22 pm:
Cullerton did not intend for the Act to be used in this manner. Planned Parenthood’s claim violates the spirit behind the Act. If a judge decides Planned Parenthood’s usage stands, then the Act will need to be clarified further.
We want free speech. We want local groups to be able to voice their emotions and views against organizations with an inside tract in our governments. We want the Davids to have a fairer stand against the Goliaths, which we recognize as normally controlling our society and government. If harsh words are used, we do not want to see the Goliaths sending out their flying monkey lawyers to suit the Davids into poverty. We want free speech allowing all stakeholders within an issue to speak freely - even emotionally at times.
What we have here is a Goliath feigning abuse by a David. And using this law to do it. Common sense clearly indicates that it took a flock of flying monkey lawyers to make their case, which common sense also reaffirms the point that Planned Parenthood is the Goliath in this situation.
Locals wanted to be heard when Planned Parenthood used insider tactics to surprise everyone with a mega abortion clinic. Just as with other real estate development schemes, the Illinois’ Citizen Participation Act protects locals when they hit the streets angry over being snookered by the Goliaths.
Cullerton should voice disapproval of how this Act was hijacked to shackle local free speech, regardless of the issue at hand.
- Fan of the Game - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 1:05 pm:
The law should not allow a person or persons to be commit libel or slander in the “furtherance of…participation in government.” In public issues, a lie is a lie, regardless of the intent or desired outcome.
- Missing Springfield - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 1:44 pm:
This may be the first and only time in my life I side with the pro-life group… seems to be an abuse of they law which does not help the overarching cause.
- archpundit - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 2:00 pm:
Technically PP may be right, but it is a far broader interpretation that was meant and certainly broader than is needed to protect free speech. PP could have had the lawsuit thrown out for multiple reasons even without this interpretation–given the statements are true, there’s no real basis for the original lawsuit.
That said, if this is a reasonable interpretation given the plain language at least we may find out on a clear case on other merits and we can change the law to be clearer.
- Skeeter - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 2:23 pm:
It is an interesting issue.
The McCain people are claiming that Sen. Biden lied when he claimed that McCain was somewhat responsible for the financial situation.
The Obama people are claiming that Sen. McCain lied when he said that Obama voted to raise taxes on people making $40,000 per year.
Should stuff like (if it is not already) be immune from civil liability? Sure.
On the other hand, if a candidate had said “Candidate A frequents prostitutes” it seems that the statement should not be immune from civil liability.
There is a line somewhere, although I’m not sure where it should be drawn.
- trafficmatt - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 2:28 pm:
The discussion of PP vs. the protesters would be fun, but your question was narrowly focused, so I’ll behave.
No, the law does not go too far. In the case of a large organization (government or company) that files a SLAPP lawsuit vs. a protestor there are lots and lots of legal fees that get thrown around. Big organization has attorneys, local gadflys don’t. A method by which the case is solved quickly, seems prudent, while not completely taking the burden off of someone that might say inflamatory things that are untrue that hurt the big organization. Personal responsibility done quickly and cheaply and the lawyers don’t get as much fee - sounds good to me.
By the way, reading the State statute is like reading in stereo. Maybe someday we will get attorneys that write these bills to write them in such a way that the average person can understand them. Go figure, public laws that the public can understand.
- Way Northsider - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 2:59 pm:
This is a hard one. Clearly free speech should be protected. However, it feels wrong that one can use a flat out falsehood, if it has no basis at all, and is not subject to any judgment calls. The obvious answer is to say you shouldn’t be allowed to just make something up if it suits your purposes but the devil is indeed in the details - few instances are likely to neatly fit into the box of “there is absolutely no grain of truth to this”. Conclusion - I don’t know!
Great question, Rich.
- Lefty Lefty - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 3:36 pm:
This is why we have lawyers (on both sides). I have been trying to make head or tail out of this for 10 minutes, and I have to get back to work. It will come down to the judge and the legislature.
Personally I think hyperbole is part of the process now. The grotesque pictures that the anti-choicers carry around are not typical of the majority of abortion procedures so could be deemed “libelous.” PLAL may not be violent now but apparent was in its history so the statement is factually true but incendiary.
- wordslinger - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 3:56 pm:
I’m a First Amendment absolutist, with the caveats of well-established libel and slander precedents. Obama, McCain, Chavez, Stalin, Hitler, whatever floats your boat. If your speech threatens violence, that’s a different story.
People lie, or maybe not, depending on your point of view. The less government intervention in the marketplace of ideas, the better. It’s ultimately up to individuals to weigh information and make decisions. Or not.
I’m a big boy, I’ll sift through a boatload of lies every days before I’ll petition the government to figure it our for me.
- Suzanne - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 5:04 pm:
I’m stuck on the phrase, “absolute immunity…” If what PP said is verifiable (i.e. “well-documented history”), why would PP need immunity–absolute or otherwise–for having said it?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 5:05 pm:
===why would PP need immunity–absolute or otherwise–for having said it? ===
Because judges can decide the same facts different ways.
- Smitty Irving - Monday, Oct 6, 08 @ 10:30 pm:
Since when is the truth libel / slander? Everything PP said about Joseph Scheidler is true - he and his organization were convicted in court of violence.