No one can gag the Internet because no one can police the Internet. ... Forums and blogs will always exist and people will always give their opinions.
In July 2002, National Technical Systems, Inc. (NTS) and its president Jack Lin (“respondents”) sued former NTS vice-president Brett Schoneman (“appellant”) for defamation, alleging that Schoneman made posts on the Yahoo!Finance message board containing false and defamatory statements about the respondents’ management practices and behavior. Schoneman brought a special motion to strike under the California anti-SLAPP statute (strategic lawsuits against public participation, Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.16).The anti-SLAPP statute is aimed at curbing “lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.” (§425.16, subd. (a).) Protected speech includes statements made in “a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.” (§425.16, subd. (e)(3).) In order to succeed in its motion, the defendant must make a threshold showing that the lawsuit arises from a protected First Amendment activity; then, the court examines whether there is a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. An order granting or denying a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute is appealable.
The trial court denied Schoneman’s special motion to strike, finding that first, there is no evidence that the Yahoo! message board is a public forum and second, there is no evidence that Schoneman’s postings concern a matter of public interest. The court did not address the question of whether respondents can establish a probability of success on the merits of their claim.
The Court of Appeal reversed the above judgment, ruling that the Internet message board was a “public forum,” a place open to the public where information is freely exchanged. There had been some 20,685 postings regarding NTS’s share values and the qualifications of its officers on the message board, which satisfied the traditional definition of a public forum. The Court also found that the postings were made “in connection with an issue of public interest,” because the management practices of a publicly traded company and its president are a matter of public interest to existing and potential shareholders, affecting the markets as a whole. The fact that respondent Lin is not a public figure has no bearing on the scope of anti-SLAPP suit, it notes, since the section 425.16 applies to any person or entity that brings a lawsuit to chill the exercise of First Amendment rights. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the respondents cannot prevail upon the merits of their lawsuit, as they failed to plead the defamation case with the required particularity. They merely alleged that some postings were libelous, without quoting a single defamatory statement in their complaint, and failed to demonstrate why the appellant’s statements are not protected opinion. The trial court was directed to enter a new order granting the special motion to strike.
So based on above backdrop where do I stand in a gag Order of a Jack Rabbit J Also many show me Contempt proceedings and I dare ask will they stand trial.......keep thinking now J
Respect the LCI Forum and not me !
Reasoning: The forum has given space to you to seek legal knowledge to win from your case(s) is it not so and moreover my ID is just a click away for deletion and or preservation J J J
