Bill that protects free speech, journalists and guards against frivolous lawsuits heads to Senate
Rep. James Reavis, D-Billings, speaks before the House Judiciary Committee about House Bill 292 which would prohibit strategic lawsuits against public participation. (Photo screenshot via Montana Public Affairs Network)
For now, it's safe to say that no bill may ever be quite as popular as House Bill 292, which unanimously passed the Montana House of Representatives on Thursday and would protect citizens and journalists from 'SLAPP' lawsuits.
If passed into law by Montana, after going through the Senate and the governor's desk, it would give new protections to those targeted by 'SLAPP' lawsuits, which stands for 'strategic lawsuit against public participation.'
The bill, cosponsored by Reps. Tom Millett, R-Marion, and James Reavis, D-Billings, demonstrated bipartisan and overwhelming support throughout its journey in the House, where it passed the Judiciary Committee 20-0, and then passed both readings on the full House floor by votes of 100-0, and 99-0.
The bill will now head to the Montana Senate.
SLAPP lawsuits, which have garnered attention increasingly, including an entire segment on the popular HBO news show, 'Last Week Tonight with John Oliver,' are often filed by large corporations or sometimes even government entities to try to prevent the public or media from bringing facts to the public's attention. Often, the lawsuits are funded by corporations or businesses that have extensive legal resources or in-house attorneys, while those speaking out against them must hire their own attorneys, and may not have the legal resources to challenge it in court, thus stifling or completely ending criticism or investigation into wrongdoing.
As many advocates argue, the purpose in SLAPP lawsuits isn't to win, it's to stop the opposing party from being able to fight, using wealth and the justice system to force opponents to stop.
'The real goal is to entangle the defendant in expensive litigation and stifle their ability to participate in constitutionally related activities,' Millett said.
Both sponsors of the bill told fellow lawmakers that the legislation is modeled after other states that have adopted similar laws. The new anti-SLAPP bill allows courts to quickly dismiss SLAPP lawsuits, while forcing those who brought the suit to pay for the other side's attorney fees. Reavis and Millett said that provides a deterrent from bringing bad faith lawsuits.
And both sponsors pointed out that the legislation was consistent with freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of association protections found in the state and federal constitutions.
'The mandatory nature of attorneys' fees will help stop the filing in the first place,' Millett said.
As attorney, Reavis said fellow lawyers will look at these cases differently.
'It will discourage the practice because an attorney will have to warn their client that they could be on the hook for the other side's attorneys' fees,' Reavis said.
Jacqueline Lenmark, one of five Montana Commissioners on the Uniform Law Commission, said her group unanimously supports the measure, which has been adopted in 32 other states.
The bill also had the support of some larger, higher profile groups, like the Motion Picture Association of America, which represents large news organizations as well as small independent documentary filmmakers, who are often sued to stop reporting on a project.
'This protects everyone's free speech against costly and unnecessary litigation,' said MPAA lobbyist Jessie Luther.
Al Smith of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association said his organization supports the efforts, too.
'Bad attorneys and their clients get dinged for bringing bad suits, and good attorneys get fees because they brought a valid lawsuit,' Smith said.
He said as Montana law stands currently, even fighting a SLAPP lawsuit can take years and thousands of dollars.
'This speeds it up and protects free-speech rights,' Smith said.
Jay Adkisson, an attorney in Nevada, told about his experiences as an attorney being sued. He said he was once sued for $4.7 billion and also faced a $20 million SLAPP lawsuit in California, just for writing about a court opinion for forbes.com
He said that both were eventually dismissed, but both could also stifle free speech and a free press. And both lawsuits took an extensive amount of time just to fight, even though he was successful, and the claims were preposterous.
'These cases are not about winning in court, but about wasting the resources of those who speak out,' Millett said. 'We need to make it harder for entities to abuse the legal system.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans revise ban on state AI regulations in bid to preserve controversial provision
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans have made changes to their party's sweeping tax bill in hopes of preserving a new policy that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. In legislative text unveiled Thursday night, Senate Republicans proposed denying states federal funding for broadband projects if they regulate AI. That's a change from a provision in the House-passed version of the tax overhaul that simply banned any current or future AI regulations by the states for 10 years. 'These provisions fulfill the mandate given to President Trump and Congressional Republicans by the voters: to unleash America's full economic potential and keep her safe from enemies,' Sen. Ted Cruz, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement announcing the changes. The proposed ban has angered state lawmakers in Democratic and Republican-led states and alarmed some digital safety advocates concerned about how AI will develop as the technology rapidly advances. But leading AI executives, including OpenAI's Sam Altman, have made the case to senators that a 'patchwork' of state AI regulations would cripple innovation. Some House Republicans are also uneasy with the provision. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., came out against the AI regulatory moratorium in the House bill after voting for it. She said she had not read that section of the bill. 'We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power. Not the other way around,' Greene wrote on social media. Senate Republicans made their change in an attempt to follow the special process being used to pass the tax bill with a simple majority vote. To comply with those rules, any provision needs to deal primarily with the federal budget and not government policy. Republican leaders argue, essentially, that by setting conditions for states to receive certain federal appropriations — in this instance, funding for broadband internet infrastructure — they would meet the Senate's standard for using a majority vote. Cruz told reporters Thursday that he will make his case next week to Senate parliamentarian on why the revised ban satisfies the rules. The parliamentarian is the chamber's advisor on its proper rules and procedures. While the parliamentarian's ruling are not binding, senators of both parties have adhered to their findings in the past. Senators generally argue that Congress should take the lead on regulating AI but so far the two parties have been unable to broker a deal that is acceptable to Republicans' and Democrats' divergent concerns. The GOP legislation also includes significant changes to how the federal government auctions commercial spectrum ranges. Those new provisions expand the range of spectrum available for commercial use, an issue that has divided lawmakers over how to balance questions of national security alongside providing telecommunications firms access to more frequencies for commercial wireless use. Senators are aiming to pass the tax package, which extends the 2017 rate cuts and other breaks from President Donald Trump's first term along with new tax breaks and steep cuts to social programs, later this month. Matt Brown, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Hegseth Joins Veterans In Normandy To Mark 81st Anniversary of D-Day
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth joined veterans in Normandy, France, on Friday to mark the 81st anniversary of the D-Day landings Tens of thousands took part in the commemorations of the pivotal moment that turned the tide in the Second World War in favor of the Allies. "Freedom is everything," said Harold Terens, a 101-year-old U.S. veteran, who returned to Normandy to mark the anniversary. "I pray for freedom for the whole world. For the war to end in Ukraine, and Russia, and Sudan and Gaza. I think war is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting." The event included parachute jumps, flyovers, remembrance ceremonies, parades, and historical reenactments. This is a breaking news story, more updates to follow.
Associated Press
20 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Senate Republicans revise ban on state AI regulations in bid to preserve controversial provision
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans have made changes to their party's sweeping tax bill in hopes of preserving a new policy that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. In legislative text unveiled Thursday night, Senate Republicans proposed denying states federal funding for broadband projects if they regulate AI. That's a change from a provision in the House-passed version of the tax overhaul that simply banned any current or future AI regulations by the states for 10 years. 'These provisions fulfill the mandate given to President Trump and Congressional Republicans by the voters: to unleash America's full economic potential and keep her safe from enemies,' Sen. Ted Cruz, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement announcing the changes. The proposed ban has angered state lawmakers in Democratic and Republican-led states and alarmed some digital safety advocates concerned about how AI will develop as the technology rapidly advances. But leading AI executives, including OpenAI's Sam Altman, have made the case to senators that a 'patchwork' of state AI regulations would cripple innovation. Some House Republicans are also uneasy with the provision. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., came out against the AI regulatory moratorium in the House bill after voting for it. She said she had not read that section of the bill. 'We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power. Not the other way around,' Greene wrote on social media. Senate Republicans made their change in an attempt to follow the special process being used to pass the tax bill with a simple majority vote. To comply with those rules, any provision needs to deal primarily with the federal budget and not government policy. Republican leaders argue, essentially, that by setting conditions for states to receive certain federal appropriations — in this instance, funding for broadband internet infrastructure — they would meet the Senate's standard for using a majority vote. Cruz told reporters Thursday that he will make his case next week to Senate parliamentarian on why the revised ban satisfies the rules. The parliamentarian is the chamber's advisor on its proper rules and procedures. While the parliamentarian's ruling are not binding, senators of both parties have adhered to their findings in the past. Senators generally argue that Congress should take the lead on regulating AI but so far the two parties have been unable to broker a deal that is acceptable to Republicans' and Democrats' divergent concerns. The GOP legislation also includes significant changes to how the federal government auctions commercial spectrum ranges. Those new provisions expand the range of spectrum available for commercial use, an issue that has divided lawmakers over how to balance questions of national security alongside providing telecommunications firms access to more frequencies for commercial wireless use. Senators are aiming to pass the tax package, which extends the 2017 rate cuts and other breaks from President Donald Trump's first term along with new tax breaks and steep cuts to social programs, later this month.
