Mediaboss Marketing

OPINION:

Freedom for me and none for thee has moved from a mere mantra to a disquieting, freedom-shattering reality in some sectors, with many citizens and government officials flagrantly forgetting the reality that liberty and justice are truly for all.

Arrests and court battles around the globe showcase what happens when people mistakenly assume their beliefs and whims are Gospel truths and, as a result, engage in attempts to snuff out the opposition and impede rivals freedom, speech and human rights.

Lets briefly look at three arrests and legal battles that should have Christians on edge, engaged, and fighting for the continuance of their rights:

Christian street preacher handcuffed, detained

A man who attended a recent Pride rally in Reading, Pennsylvania, found himself arrested after joining those protesting the event.

Damon Atkins was handcuffed, arrested and charged with criminal disorderly conduct, with footage of the incident quickly making the rounds. Mr. Atkins offense? He was apparently shouting Bible verses. And according to the video, he recited a Scripture 1 Corinthians 14:33 after a police officer told him to be quiet.

SEE ALSO: British pro-life advocate again arrested for thoughtcrime of silent prayer near abortion clinic

Im not being rude, Im just here to spread the Gospel of good news. Jesus Christ saved me and he can save everyone, including you, Mr. Atkins said, directly addressing the officer in question.

At first, the story seemed unbelievable: a street preacher detained for refusing to stop speaking and sharing his biblical beliefs? I assumed there was more to the story some sort of threat or illegal action aside from mere protest or reciting Scripture but the district attorney in Berks County, Pennsylvania, ended up dropping the charges.

From what I have seen thus far, I believe this was an unlawful arrest and could open the city of Reading and their police department to legal action, County Commissioner Christian Leinbachsaidafter the incident.

The Berks County District Attorneys Officeadded: After review of the video of the incident, including body-worn cameras, and a review of the case law, we did not believe we could prove a criminal case of disorderly conduct.

The shocking ordeal makes one wonder what would have happened if someone didnt catch the bizarre interaction and arrest on video.

Woman arrested after praying silently

Meanwhile, across the pond, theres a bizarre British case about a woman who has been detained twice while praying silently in her head outside of an abortion clinic.

Isabel Vaughan-Spruces troubling case made headlines this year after a video showed police asking why she was silently speaking to the Lord outside of a clinic.

The legal conundrum started in December when Ms. Vaughan-Spruce, director of the U.K. March For Life, was detained in Birmingham, England, while presumably uttering prayer on a public street near the clinic.

In footage of the incident, Ms. Vaughan-Spruce tells a police officer she might be praying in her head it but isnt in protest; then, he arrests her.

Charges were later dropped, but she was arrested just weeks later for the same offense.

She is continuing to fight for clarity surrounding her right to silent prayer within the vicinity of abortion clinics. Ms. Vaughan-Spruce and others are also challenging and questioningPublic Space Protection Orders, regulations implemented at the local level to create buffer zones around clinics where pro-life protesters are unwelcome.

Ex-gay Maltese man faces charges over sharing his testimony

Finally, theres a deeply troublinglegal case unfolding in Malta believed to be the first of its kind anywhere. It surrounds ex-LGBTQ activist Matthew Grech, who is on trial after sharing his story of embracing Jesus.

Mr. Grech told me this year that he came under fire after sharing his story on a local Maltese outlet, as the nation has cracked down on conversion therapy. Thus, when he shared his journey of choosing Christianity over his former life, it led to legal problems.

Despite criticizing Maltas laws on conversion therapy and sharing his personal quest to change his actions, Mr. Grechs interview didnt appear to advertise conversion therapy.

Police give me a call, and they say Three people reported you to the police and reported the presenters as well because theyre claiming that you breached Maltese law, which says that you cannot advertise so-called conversion practices, Mr. Grechtold me. And so I turned up to the police station with my lawyer. We exercised our right to be silent.

Now, Mr. Grech, whose court case started this month,could facemassive fines and even five months in prison.

Each of these cases presents deeply troubling scenarios and ramifications unbefitting of any free and democratic society. Regardless of where one stands on LGBTQ issues, faith or the individuals actions, these cases, though anecdotal, point to a terrifying pattern of abuse and disregard for free speech and expression and, frankly, legal sanity.

With culture continuing to shape-shift in such profound ways, discerning Christians would be smart to pay attention to these cases, speak up boldly and work to peacefully ensure Fthat irst Amendment rights are upheld.

These cases show the dire consequences that can come when we abdicate this responsibility.

Billy Hallowell is a digital TV host and interviewer for Faithwire and CBN News and the co-host of CBNs Quick Start Podcast. He is the author of four books.

Go here to see the original:
Christians must work to ensure First Amendment rights stay protected - Washington Times

from the but-it-won't-stop-people-from-thinking-you're-racist-assholes dept

The First Amendment protects speech, even the horrible stuff. It cant protect the speaker from being criticized for being abhorrent, despite what many abhorrent people believe. It can, however, in certain cases, protect the speaker from being punished for this speech.

Its not blanket coverage. The person engaging in the speech generally has to be punished by a government entity for this protection to kick in. A private company can fire someone for their speech without worrying too much about the Constitution. But a state entity needs to be far more careful, even when its dealing with its own employees.

The added wrinkle is the First Amendment limitations placed on government employees. Most speech is protected, but speech made while acting as a government employee via their official duties is less protected than speech made off the clock as just a regular, non-government person.

All of that factors into this recent decision [PDF] by the Third Circuit Appeals Court. (h/t Eric Goldman)

At the center of this lawsuit are a bunch of Philadelphia cops who decided to be terrible online. In 2019, accountability activists Plain View Project outed several disturbing social media posts linked to these officers (as well as those made by officers from other major police departments). In response, the Philadelphia police commissioner stated that 13 officers would be fired for their posts, which contained invective targeting several protected groups.

The posts were described by the District Court as having spanned a multitude of topics such as protestors and their treatment, the use of violence against child molesters, Islam and its followers, refugees, police brutality, and much more. However, the posts also ridiculed and belittled members from the LGTBQ community, reportedly using individuals who are transgender as punch lines in their jokes, or worse, threatened violence against them African Americans, Muslims, Mexicans, and foreign refugees were not spared as Plaintiffs played racist bingo, mocking as many ethnic or religious groups as possible.

In short, garbage people saying garbage things online. But these people were cops, who are expected to hold themselves to a higher standard. Their employer, the Philadelphia police department, obviously felt these posts went too far. 72 officers were investigated. The twelve officers bringing this lawsuit were punished to some extent for violating the PPDs social media policy, which said employees were prohibited from using ethnic slurs, personal insults, obscenities, or engaging in harassment, defamation, or fraud.

This governed use of social media while in uniform and on the clock. The policy also noted that personal use of social media services by employees would be scrutinized to ensure these rules were followed.

The 12 disciplined officers sued, claiming the policy was unconstitutional and that their discipline was illegal First Amendment retaliation.

The Appeals Court (mostly) agrees.

The Constitutional guarantee of free expression is a pillar of our democracy, and yet, it can be bitter medicine particularly when prescribed in defense of social medias more antisocial viewpoints.

[]

This Court does not condone the Appellant officers use of social media to mock, disparage, and threaten the very communities that they are sworn to protect. While we do not opine on the merits of their suit, our rules of procedure dictate that the Appellant officers have stated a claim of First Amendment retaliation at this juncture.

Thats the thing about the First Amendment. In order for it to provide protection for the best of us, it also has to protect the worst of us. People who never utter anything hateful rarely need to worry about the government stepping on their free speech rights. Horrific criminals sometimes generate the best Fourth and Fifth Amendment case law. Bigoted assholes are, unfortunately, necessary to the establishment of solid First Amendment precedent.

But it wont protect these officers from further criticism and condemnation from the general public. So, while this lawsuit can proceed, theres no reason we cant use this decision to link these officers names to their hateful social media posts. All of the following are taken directly from the decision:

Officer Christian Fencio (terminated):

In a response to a 2015 shared post describing refugees rejecting a food delivery because it bore a Red Cross logo, Fencio commented, Good, let them starve. I hate every last one of them. In a 2013 post, Fencio commented, Should have shot him, on an article detailing a theft in Missouri.

Officer Thomas Young (suspended, allowed to retire in lieu of termination):

In a post from 2015, Young commented on a shared YouTube link titled, Migrant Workers are Thrown Over Motorway Barrier by Police. Young replied, They should gather them up and send them back where they came from.

Officer Thomas Gack (restricted duty, termination):

In one 2015 post, Gack shared a meme depicting a box of shotgun shells edited to read, ISIS LOAD, 00 BUCK & BACON BITS. [] In another post, Gack mocked female politicians. One of Gacks 2013 posts highlighted in Plain View reflects the comment Ha ha ha in response to another post mocking families with incarcerated fathers.

Officer Edward McCammitt (suspended, retired):

In 2017, McCammitt shared a picture of an officer spraying a protester with mace with the caption, PARTICIPATION TROPHIES NOW IN LIQUID FORM! In a 2017 post, he shared a picture of a bumper detached from a vehicle, with the caption, THIS BUMPER WILL TAKE AN ANIMAL HIT AT 65 MPH OR A PROTESTER, WHATEVER. One of McCammitts posts from 2015 says, Like and share If you support the Confederate flag.

Officer Tanya Grandizo (placed on restricted duty, still employed by the PPD):

[S]he reposted a list of all the reasons why Muslims cannot be good American[s], which concluded, Therefore, after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should be suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country, because they cannot and will not integrate into the great melting pot of America.

Officer Anthony Anzideo (restricted duty, still employed by the PPD):

Anzideo shared a USATODAY.COM news article from 2015 reading 9 Dead in shooting at black church in Charleston, S.C., to which Anzideo added the caption, This is horrible..Hope they track this POS down and take him out. In 2016, in response to a news article he posted from 6ABC.COM titled Woman Shot and Killed in Lower Salford; 2nd Victim Shot in Lansdale, Anzideo responded POStake him out.

Officer Anthony Acquaviva (placed on Giglio List, terminated):

In 2015, Acquaviva shared a post on Facebook from a fellow Officer in this action, Joseph Przepiorka, depicting a man with a beard overlaid with the text reading, ALL I WANT TO DO IS MOVE TO YOUR COUNTRY, RAPE YOUR WOMEN, BOMB YOUR BUSES, RIOT IN YOUR STREETS AND DEMAND THAT YOU ACCEPT MY RELIGION. WHY CANT YOU BE MORE TOLERANT? In 2015, Acquaviva shared another post with the graphic of the United States overlaid with the text FUCK OFF WERE FULL. In a 2016 post, Acquaviva shared an image of generic police officers with the text, SHARE IF YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE LEGAL . . . TO THROAT PUNCH A CIVILIAN THAT SPITS ON A MAN IN UNIFORM.

Officer Kristine Amato (suspended 30 days, still employed by the PPD):

Responding to a 2017 post by Appellant Przepiorka about an article titled YouTube fight video shows what not to do when the cops come, Amato commented Shes a racist reporter plain and simple. she not only took a swing at the cop but also continued to resist and strike the officer In 2017, Amato responded to a video shared by another titled Tulsa Officer Uses Car To Run Down Armed Suspect, with the comment, Awesome.. hopefully the wheels went over her scumbag ass.

Officer Joseph Przepiorka (suspended, retired):

One of Przepiorkas posts from 2017 depicted a skeleton draped in the American flag and touting an automatic weapon with the words, DEATH TO ISLAM at the top. [] Przepiorka shared a picture of professional wrestler Steve Austin emblazoned with the confederate flag and the text, Give Me A Hell Yeah FOR TRUMP. In another post, he shared a picture of a white cap embroidered with the words, MAKE AMERICA NOT A BUNCH OF CUNTS OFFENDED BY EVERYTHING AGAIN.

Officer William Bowdren (placed on Giglio List, removed from Gun Violence Task Force, still employed by the PPD):

[B]owdren commented, Vroom Vroom on an article [] titled Tennessee Passes Bill Allowing People To Hit Protestors Blocking Roads. In 2017, Bowdren shared an article from 6ABC.COM titled Mother and boyfriend both charged in teens murder, to which he added the caption, These animals need to be tortured and mutilated in a public square.

Officer Raphael McGough (received letter of reprimand, still employed by the PPD):

In 2017, McGough shared an article titled, UPDATING: In Progress Antifa Marching To Confront Patriots Decide To Take On Police, on which McGough commented, [a]nd we know who the liberal scum are rooting for. In another post, McGough commented, You reap what you sow, in response to an article on BREITBART.COM with the title Baltimore Residents Blaming Murder Increase on Lack of Police After BLM Protestors Demanded Pullback.

Officer Francis Sheridan (threatened with a reprimand, still employed by the PPD):

Sheridan responded to anothers shared link bearing the text CHILD RAPIST RAPED and a graphic photo with Thank God for Prison Justice! In the 2017 comment, Sheridan responded to a news link captioned A teenager arrested for raping a baby will avoid prison, with the comment, If this is a true story, these assholes need to be exterminated!

So, its mostly just the sort of thing you expect to see on Facebook. Except its cops, rather than just regular people. This speech is protected, even if it violates the ethics policies of the police department. As the court sees it, theres enough of a whiff of retaliation to allow the lawsuit to continue. It doesnt necessarily mean these cops (current and former) are on their way to victory. It just means the First Amendment likely protects this sort of commentary (as awful as it is), even when its made by people who should definitely know better.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 3rd circuit, bigotry, philadelphia pd, police, social media

Link:
Third Circuit Says First Amendment Protects Cops Who Want To Be ... - Techdirt

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) The city of St. George must issue a permit for a Utah-based group that organizes drag performances to host an all-ages drag show in a public park, a federal judge ruled, calling the citys attempt to stop the show unconstitutional discrimination.

Public spaces are public spaces. Public spaces are not private spaces. Public spaces are not majority spaces, U.S. District Judge David Nuffer wrote in a Friday ruling granting the preliminary injunction requested by the group. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution ensures that all citizens, popular or not, majority or minority, conventional or unconventional, have access to public spaces for public expression.

Southern Utah Drag Stars and its CEO, Mitski Avalx, sued the city of St. George in May after the city denied the group permits for an all-ages show it aimed to host in a public park in April. A complaint filed in federal court accused city officials of flagrant and ongoing violations of their free speech, due process, and equal protection rights, and asked for St. George to reverse its decision and authorize a drag show at the end of June.

A city events coordinator told Drag Stars, Avalx said, that the group could start advertising for the April show before obtaining a permit. The city council later denied the permit, citing a never-previously-enforced ordinance that forbids advertising before permit approval. The permit denial based on that ordinance, Nuffer wrote in his ruling, was a pretext for discrimination.

Public officials take an oath to support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Utah, Nuffer wrote. They do not merely serve the citizens who elect them, the majority of citizens in the community, or a vocal minority in the community.

The city now may not enforce any new advertising prohibitions against the group or its show, Nuffer ruled, ordering that the performance must take scheduling precedence over any other event.

In a statement, the city of St. George said it is committed to ensuring public parks and facilities remain viable and open to residents and those who want to hold special events.

Our intent is always to follow the law both when we enact laws and when we enforce laws, and we will continue to do so, the statement said. We have read Judge Nuffers opinion and while we are disappointed in the result, we are currently evaluating our options in light of the ruling.

The lawsuit marked the most recent development in a fight over drag shows in St. George, Utah, a conservative city 111 miles (179 kilometers) northeast of Las Vegas, Nevada. Since HBO filmed a drag show in a public park last year for an episode of its series Were Here, the city has emerged as a flashpoint in the nationwide battle over drag performances as theyve garnered newfound political scrutiny in Republican-controlled cities and states.

Public events like drag queen story hours and the all-ages event that Avalx intended to put together have been increasingly targeted in legislatures throughout the country. In May, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a ban on minors attending drag shows, and Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed a ban on people dressed in drag from reading books to children at public schools and libraries.

In Utah, a proposal from a St. George Republican to require warning notices for events like drag shows or pride parades in public places stalled after advancing through the state House of Representatives in March. The proposal stemmed from the pushback that resulted from the HBO-produced drag show in St. George.

City officials issued permits for the show over the objection from some council members and community activists. City Manager Adam Lenhard resigned months later after writing councilmembers to say that he could not legally deny the show permits, according to emails obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune.

Avalx founded Southern Utah Drag Stars after the fallout, hoping to showcase drag for members of the LGBTQ+ community in a rural place where such forms of entertainment are often lacking.

I made it my mission to continue to do these events and not just one month out of the year, but to do so people that were like me when I was little can see that there are queer adults that get to live a long and fulfilled life, Avalx said in an interview with The Associated Press. My biggest ambition was to provide a public space where people can go to a park and enjoy a show thats meant for everyone.

Go here to see the original:
A Utah city violated the First Amendment in denying a drag show ... - East Idaho News

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says social media giant YouTube was wrong to take down videos of COVID-19 vaccine discussions and an interview in which the Democrat presidential candidate said that chemicals in the water are turning kids transgender.

"I think its wrong. I think were living in [a] new era where these big social media sites have now replaced the public square," Kennedy said Tuesday in an interview with Fox News Digital. "I think they really ought to have a sense of obligation to be the forums for open debate on issues even if the issues are complex or difficult."

The environmental lawyer and high-profile vaccine critic, whos a scion of arguably the nations most famous family political dynasty, said "the First Amendment was not passed to protect safe speech. It was passed to protect difficult speech, speech that people dont want to hear. And I think the social media sites need to really have to look carefully at their responsibility."

Kennedy and podcast host Jordan Peterson tweeted Sunday that the video-sharing website had taken down their interview from an episode of Petersons show and accused the social media platform of censorship and interfering with a presidential campaign.

WHY YOUTUBE SAYS IT REMOVED A ROBERT F KENNEDY JR INTERVIEW

Kennedy, who's mounting a primary challenge against President Joe Biden, told Fox News during a campaign stop interview in Nashua, New Hampshire, that "I have dissenting views on some of these issues, but we ought to be able to debate that. We ought to be able to debate it in a way thats congenial and respectful and is fact-based and not employ censorship."

READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP

In the interview with Peterson, Kennedy said that "a lot of the sexual dysphoria" America is seeing comes from exposure to chemicals in the water.

"I think a lot of the problems we see in kids, particularly boys, its probably underappreciated on that how much of that is coming from chemical exposures, including a lot of the sexual dysphoria that were seeing," Kennedy said.

Story continues

ROBERT F KENNEDY JR PROPOSES SOLUTION TO END HOMELESSNESS

"I mean, theyre swimming through a soup of toxic chemicals today, and many of those are endocrine disruptors. Theres atrazine throughout our water supply," the Democrat presidential candidate said.

"Atrazine, by the way, if you in a lab put atrazine in a tank full of frogs, it will chemically castrate and forcefully feminize every frog in there," Kennedy said. "And 10% of the frogs, the male frogs will turn into fully viable females able to produce viable eggs if its doing that to frogs. It could, theres a lot of other evidence that its doing to human beings as well."

A Google spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement that YouTube "removed a video from the Jordan Peterson channel for violating YouTubes general vaccine misinformation policy, which prohibits content that alleges that vaccines cause chronic side effects, outside of rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities."

Additionally, the spokesperson said the company "removed a video from the Jordan Peterson channel featuring a conversation with Robert F. Kennedy Jr." and that Google's "Community Guidelines apply equally to all creators on our platform, regardless of political viewpoint."

"Under our general vaccine misinformation policies, we remove false claims about currently administered vaccines that are approved and confirmed to be safe and effective by local health authorities and the WHO. This includes content that falsely alleges that approved vaccines are dangerous and cause chronic health effects, claims that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease, or contains misinformation on the substances contained in vaccines will be removed. This would include content that falsely says that approved vaccines cause autism, cancer or infertility, or that substances in vaccines can track those who receive them."

"Our policies not only cover specific routine immunizations like for measles or Hepatitis B, but also apply to general statements about vaccines," the spokesperson wrote. "Content that would otherwise violate our Community Guidelines may stay on YouTube when it has Educational, Documentary, Scientific, or Artistic (EDSA) context, such as providing countervailing views to the remarks that violate our policies."

JOE ROGAN, ELON MUSK CHALLENGE VACCINE SCIENTIST TO DEBATE RFK JR

Kennedy, speaking with Fox News, also reiterated that he's long been asking a prominent vaccine scientist to join him in a debate.

Elon Musk and Joe Rogan touched off a firestorm over the weekend as they pushed Dr. Peter Hotez to debate Kennedy on Rogan's popular podcast.

Rogan offered Hotez $100,000 to the charity of his choice if he agreed to debate Kennedy on Rogan's program after Hotez slammed a recent interview Kennedy had on Rogan's program as "awful" and "nonsense." Kennedy repeated unproven claims he has long made that vaccines cause autism, and he and Rogan also discussed what they viewed as the dangers of 5G technology and the power of the pharmaceutical industry.

"Ill debate anybody anywhere on this issue. Ive been asking Peter Hotez to debate me for years. But he has refused to do it," Kennedy said Tuesday.

"If youre a scientist and you cannot defend your science, theres something wrong with it," he added. "I think it would be healthy for our country. I think we ought to have the debate. I think the American people deserve that kind of debate on every public health issue. All science is ultimately rooted in reason and logic and we ought to be able to defend it."

Hotez said on Twitter over the weekend that he was "stalked" outside his home Sunday morning by two people espousing anti-vaccinesviews and urging him to debate Kennedy.

Asked for a reaction, Kennedy said that "nobody should be harassed for their points of view. Thats un-American, too."

Continued here:
RFK Jr lectures social media sites on First Amendment after YouTube memory-holed his 'dissenting views' - Yahoo News

###

Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Gregory J. Kreis last week ruled in favor of Sharon and Steve Wolff, owners and publishers of the local news site Rio Dell Times, in a matter that pitted accusations of libel, slander and harassment against the right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment.

In his ruling, Judge Kreis ordered attorney Chris Hamer, of Arcata firm Stokes, Hamer, Kirk & Eads, and her client, Royce Mendonca, to pay more than $53,000 in attorneys fees to the Wolffs representative, Sacramento-based Paul Nicholas Boylan, who specializes in media and free speech matters. [DISCLOSURE: Boylan has also represented the Lost Coast Outpost in the past.]

The ruling stems from a contentious legal battle over the conservatorship of Sharon Wolffs elderly mother and father-in-law, Barbara and Ronald Keller. In 2021, the probate court appointed Mendonca as conservator of the Kellers, much to the frustration of the Wolffs, who characterized the situation as a court-sanctioned kidnapping. (They had filed a competing conservatorship request.)

In a press release sent out Thursday, Sharon Wolff alleged that Hamer helped Mendonca, a distant relative of her stepfather, remove the elderly couple from the Wolffs Fortuna home shortly before a conservatorship hearing with no explanation.

And then they had mom and Ron declared mentally incompetent, which meant they could control mom and Ron completely. Thats what it felt like and looked like, and I said so in the Rio Dell Times, Sharon Wolff said, adding, This is a cautionary tale for all adult children of Alzheimers and dementia victims.

Reached by phone this morning, Hamer said that after losing the conservatorship decision, Sharon Wolff lashed out with wild allegations online and in a series of letters.

She was a sore loser, and she has been libeling and slandering us, me and my client, since the order saying that she lost and we won, Hamer said.

As described in Kreiss decision, the Wolffs chronicled their grievances in the conservatorship case on riodelltimes.com, accusing Hamer of lying and fraud, among other allegations, while accusing Mendonca of being a virtual stranger to the Kellers who kidnapped them and pursued conservatorship so he could steal their money. (Hamer says thats false and that, in fact, the Kellers personally nominated Mendonca as their preferred conservator.)

Last summer, Hamer filed two petitions on behalf of Mendonca, seeking injunctions to prevent the Wolffs from libel, slander and harassment of both Mendonca and herself. They also asked the judge to order the Wolffs to immediately remove all existing false and derogatory posting, audio files, articles, statements, letters and pictures about Mendonca and Hamer from their website.

The petitions also complained about a series of letters that accused Mendonca of elder financial fraud and abuse, letters that the Wolffs sent to Humboldt County Superior Court judges, federal state and local officials and various media outlets, including the Times-Standard, Lost Coast Outpost, Redheaded Blackbelt and North Coast Journal.

Hamer described these writings as a campaign of daily disparagement.

This imposed a considerable burden and distraction on administration of the conservatorships, Hamer said in an emailed statement. Instead of filing independent civil lawsuits for damages for defamation, Royce Mendonca, as the conservator of both Ronald and Barbara Keller, filed petitions requesting that the court simply instruct Sharon and Steve Wolff to cease libeling Royce Mendonca, the conservator, and his attorney.

In response to that filing, the Wolffs retained Boylan, and last September, Boylan filed whats known as an anti-SLAPP motion, accusing Hamer and Mendonca of trying to stifle the Wolffs free speech rights through a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

The Wollfs were the victims of the legal system to a degree Ive never encountered before, Boylan said in an email to the Outpost. Sharons mother was legally removed from her life, and then the attorney who helped do that used the inequities in the legal system (i.e., the often crushing costs of defense) to censor free speech and the right to petition.

Hamer and Mendonca wound up dismissing their petitions after being told that they shouldhave been filed them as independent civil actions, rather than petitions in the context of the conservatorship proceedings. Boylan then sought to recoup his legal fees from Hamer and Mendonca, citing a rate of $750 per hour.

Hamer said it was unfair of Boylan to seek reimbursement from herself and her client, saying there is no legal authority whatsoever supporting such a request.

In his ruling, filed on June 8, Kries says that while not all of the Wolffs statements have concerned matters of public interest, the ones concerning Chris Hamer and her activities as a lawyer in connection with the case are of public interest in that they seek to inform the public about alleged abuses of public court processes designed to protect vulnerable members of the public.

Kries also ruled that Boylan and the Wolffs would have prevailed on their anti-SLAPP motion and are thus entitled to attorneys fees and costs. (He wound up using an hourly rate of $500 to calculate the amount due to Boylan: $53,445.34.)

This is a true David and Goliath story, the largest law firm in Humboldt County against the smallest local newspaper, suing them for the exercise of constitutionally protected rights, Boylan is quoted as saying in a press release from the Wolffs. (He confirmed to the Outpost that the quote is accurate.) It is rare to encounter people this deserving of assistance, he added.

Sharon Wolff described the ruling as a wonderful outcome to a very bad chapter in my life and said,Hamer and Mendonca were using my mom and Rons money to finance two lawsuits for [their own] benefit. I am grateful that the Court put a stop to it.

Hamer reiterated that she considers the imposition of fees on Mendonca and herself to be unprecedented, saying, [T]here is not a single decided case where a judge has ever done this.

She vowed to appeal the ruling.

###

DOCUMENT: Order re: Motion for Attorneys Fees

See original here:
Judge Sides With Publishers of Rio Dell Times in First Amendment ... - Lost Coast Outpost