Popehat Signal Update: Good Resolution To Steubenville, Ohio Defamation Case

Print This Post

You may also like...

13 Responses

  1. David says:

    Your one o' them defense lawers, aintcha

  2. Dave says:

    Question about the federal anti-SLAPP law: does Congress really have the authority to enact such a law? It doesn't really look like it affects commerce… Is there a 14th Amendment hook maybe?

  3. gramps says:

    There are times when "having the authority" does not draw much interest from Congress. Recent events and legislation makes it look like this is one of those times…

    Yes, anti-SLAPP does appear to be a state issue, but what do I know?

  4. Zack says:

    @Dave: If there's a federal defamation law and that's constitutional, then a federal SLAPP law is by definition constitutional- all it does, essentially, is to change some of the procedures in defamation cases, creating a presumption of innocence for defendants, and forcing a plaintiff to prove that their case is realistic. It doesn't expand the fed's powers, just rearranges chairs in the court to make it easier to not make getting sued a punishment in and of itself.

  5. AlphaCentauri says:

    Many SLAPP suits are filed in locations distant from the defendants in order to inconvenience them as much as possible, so there is often an interstate element. Whether that would be the hook for all SLAPP suits to be covered by federal law, I wouldn't know.

  6. Josh M. says:

    @Dave and Zack: I would posit that the combination of the judicial branch's authority to hear cases between citizens of two different states and congress's power to convene courts inferior to the supreme court is sufficient for congress to put that law into effect. Granted, this would only apply to interstate SLAPP suits, but isn't that the question here, anyways?

  7. Dan Weber says:

    Speaking of other Popehat-signal stuff:


    Public Citizen, by the way, sold my address to a bunch of other organizations. So while I like them for their defense of Carreon, they are trying hard to make me regret donating to them.

  8. David Aubke says:

    This story just hit the national news with a vengeance this morning.

    @Dan, same here. I'm getting all kinds of advocacy-type stuff in the mail now.

  9. Dan Weber says:

    Back to Steubenville, thanks to the brave people of Anonymous we now know that teenagers are stupid:


  10. AlphaCentauri says:

    Anonymous has a post on a .ru-registered blog that is making some very strong accusations about the public officials and coaches. Bets that there will be more enthusiasm about pursuing the people who posted that than there is about determining if any of it is true?

    It's interesting in the video that one of the kids off camera apparently has enough morals to ask the kid how he would feel if it were his daughter getting raped (and they are very explicit about describing what they did as rape), but not enough to violate the herd mentality by calling for help.

    The video shows that their parents were pretty careless about leaving a firearm laying around the floor when shit-faced high school boys were over having a rape-party, too. It's a pretty total fail for their entire families.

  11. Lee Stranahan says:

    This was a bad settlement and not a victory for free speech at all.

    It was a victory for defamation.

  12. Jess says:

    @Lee Stranahan – do you mind providing some details on why you believe this so that I can better understand your position because I must admit frankly I don't get it.

  1. January 4, 2013

    […] Popehat Signal Update: Good Resolution To Steubenville, Ohio Defamation Case | Popehat […]