Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: YouGov poll has Rauner ahead by 3 points
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
* From the Thomas More Society…
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its decision to dismiss the appeal brought by Satkar Hospitality Inc. against Illinois Review, a conservative news blog. In 2011, Satkar sued Illinois Review for defamation. The U.S. District Court dismissed the lawsuit, but Satkar appealed the decision, and in May, 2013, Thomas More Society brought oral arguments in defense of Illinois Review before the Seventh Circuit.
“We’re very pleased that this blatant attempt to silence aggressive political reporting has been finally rejected by the courts,” said Peter Breen, Thomas More Society vice president and senior counsel. “Illinois Review has a First Amendment right to speak out on controversial issues, and frivolous lawsuits should not be permitted to shut down their free speech.”
In April, 2009, Illinois Review published documents of public record showing that former Illinois State Rep. Paul Froehlich sought campaign contributions from individuals who won property tax relief with his assistance. After the story ran, the Cook County Board of Review reversed the tax breaks. Satkar Hospitality, Inc., was one of the companies that Illinois Review reported as having donated to Froehlich’s campaign and later winning a property-tax appeal.
Satkar then sued Illinois Review, along with its editor, Fran Eaton, and publisher, Dennis LaComb, for defamation. After extensive briefing, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit against Illinois Review, Eaton, and LaComb on the basis of the Illinois Citizen Participation Act, which protects those engaged in First Amendment-protected speech from frivolous lawsuits. Satkar filed a late notice of appeal, with permission of the District Court.
Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the appeal and ended the case, holding that Satkar had no good reason to file a late appeal and should not have been given permission to do so by the District Court.
Satkar Hospitality, Inc., and co-plaintiffs Sharad K. Dani, and Harish Dani, had also sued the Cook County Board of Review, Fox Television Stations, Inc., Fox Chicago News, News Corp., and Fox Television Holdings, Inc., along with multiple individuals from those entities.
“We have laws in this country that protect journalists and affirm the public’s ‘right to know’,” Breen added. “Our courts don’t want to waste time or taxpayer money on whiplash action that is thrown as a cover-up for practices of questionable legality.”
The decision is here. Good job by the lawyers, and good on the IR folks for standing their ground.
And, by the way, that Illinois Citizen Participation Act is a great thing.
…Adding… I probably shouldn’t have said the law was “great.” I’d like to see punitive damage awards here. Frivolous, SLAPP lawsuits are in essence libelous. There should be much steeper penalties for this stuff.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 4:06 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: YouGov poll has Rauner ahead by 3 points
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
But keep in mind that it looks like the appeal was denied on procedural grounds not substantive ones.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 4:23 pm
Yeah, but it’s still a SLAPP verdict.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 4:25 pm
Kudos.
For all the grief they may get from some, we need more groups like IR and Progress Illinois helping do good work like this, politics of each group aside.
Way to go.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 4:26 pm
Do the plaintiffs have to pay the defendants’ attorneys fees?
Comment by phocion Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 4:29 pm
Yes, phocion.
I probably shouldn’t have said the law was great. I’d like to see punitive damage awards here. Frivolous lawsuits are in essence a libel. There should be much steeper penalties for this stuff.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 4:48 pm
Agreed.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 5:50 pm
Rich, it’s only a SLAPP verdict at the lower court level.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 6:06 pm
Wow, not even given leave to appeal, in effect. Good.
I think there’s a broader issue here, though — the SLAPP issue shouldn’t just be thought of as business strategy or even as harassment lawsuits trying to move our system toward British levels of libel law, but harassment lawsuits in divorce cases and many other areas where either the goal is to wear the opponent down, or the plaintiff is just plain crazy. We need much tougher rules against that kind of stuff.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 6:17 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjzwhWNrOnE
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 6:27 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjzwhWNrOnE
This is funny floating around the 44th
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 6:27 pm
Anon -
Spam somewhere else.
Rich -
I agree with you. Congrats to IR and their counsel.
Let freedom ring.
YDD
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 10:25 pm
FREEDOM rings on September 11th!
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Sep 12, 14 @ 7:43 am
I’m not sure about punitive damages, but SLAPP plaintiffs should be required to pay the legal fees of defendants.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Sep 12, 14 @ 8:41 am