Latest news with #TexasCitizensParticipationAct
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Texas House bill on lawsuits shelved after critics label it harmful to free speech
A bill that critics say would have eroded free speech protections will not move forward in the Texas Legislature this session. House Bill 2988 by Rep. Mano DeAyala would have removed the automatic award of attorneys fees to defendants if they prevail in what are known as SLAPP lawsuits — which opponents said would have limited free speech protections to those who can afford to independently pay for a lawyer. His office confirmed to the Tribune that the bill was tabled, which means even sponsors do not expect any more action on it before this legislative session ends in three weeks. DeAyala said in an interview with the Tribune that while the bill is not moving forward, he thinks the conversation might prompt steps to address what he sees as problems with the current law. 'It is being abused, misused,' DeAyala said of the process that exists now. 'We can keep the good … and slow down — maybe not completely stop — but slow down and reduce this abuse considerably.' In SLAPP lawsuits — or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation — people or companies sue citizens claiming defamation or libel, often drowning the defendants in legal fees in an effort to intimidate them into silence. In 2011, lawmakers passed the Texas Citizens Participation Act to deter those lawsuits by requiring those who file them to pay the defendant's attorneys fees if they lose the case. DeAyala, in his bill, proposed amending the law to leave to a judge the decision about who those fees go to — arguing that not having to pay them was prompting defendants to file meritless motions to dismiss and needlessly delaying the process. But a broad swath of opponents urged lawmakers to vote no at a House judiciary committee hearing in April, saying the change would render the law essentially useless. Laura Prather, who heads the Protect Free Speech Coalition which opposes the bill, described the legislation as 'a full-frontal assault on the protections under the law.' 'If you're rich, you can afford to speak freely,' Prather said in April of the bill's impact. 'If you're not, you can't.' The Protect Free Speech Coalition consists of what lawmakers at the April hearing described as a mix of strange bedfellows: anti-abortion and Second Amendment advocates, good government groups, and national and local media outlets. The coalition formed in 2019 to combat prior efforts to narrow the law. (The Texas Tribune is a member of that coalition.) Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which opposed the bill, said it was 'very good news' that the measure was not moving forward. Requiring attorneys fees makes it easier to find legal representation because there is a guaranteed payment for the lawyers if their clients win, he said. The 2011 Citizens Participation Act 'is a crucial protection for ordinary Texans and the free flow of information, and it's crucial for the law to work that people are able to find lawyers,' he said in an interview. 'To change the fees provision in this way would make it much more difficult.' DeAyala's move to roll back some of the act's provisions was part of a broader effort supported by the business-backed advocacy group Texans for Lawsuit Reform to reduce people's ability to file what the group sees as frivolous lawsuits. In 2019, House Bill 2730 by Rep. Jeff Leach was signed into law, which narrowed the definition of 'public concern' — a factor that protects people from getting sued for statements they make. In 2023, an ultimately unsuccessful effort by Sen. Bryan Hughes would have allowed those who file lawsuits against critics to continue collecting evidence during an appeals process. Disclosure: Texans for Lawsuit Reform has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Texas legislation could weaken protections against frivolous lawsuits, warn free speech advocates
Free speech advocates in Texas are warning about new bills being considered in the state that they say would weaken protections for ordinary citizens and journalists against intimidating lawsuits. Lawsuits launched by powerful and deep-pocketed interests for the purpose of silencing and effectively harassing people exercising free speech rights are known as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press describes SLAPPs as being filed "for intimidating and silencing criticism through expensive, baseless legal proceedings." The 2011 Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) was passed as a way to empower defendants against such suits, advocates say, but now they say it's under attack in a threat to free speech across the political spectrum. The current law allows defendants who feel they are the victims of unfair SLAPP lawsuits to move to quickly dismiss them and be awarded attorneys' fees if successful. Hb 2988, which is set to proceed to a hearing on Wednesday in the state's House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee, is being criticized as a way to gut the TCPA. Tim Dillon Says Rebranding Of Core American Values As 'Right-wing' Is The 'Craziest Thing' He's Ever Heard "Any time someone exposes an uncomfortable truth or an opposing view, they can easily be a SLAPP victim, and these laws are the only things that give them power against the bullies in the courtroom," First Amendment attorney Laura Prather told Fox News Digital. Read On The Fox News App "It's a form of judicial harassment, where you're really just trying to lock somebody up in a lengthy legal battle because they expressed an opinion that you didn't like or they exposed wrongdoing that you didn't like," she added. In journalism, anti-SLAPP laws are meant to protect journalists from being besieged by defamation or other lawsuits as a means of intimidation, given the expense and difficulty involved in being wrapped up in lengthy court proceedings. Under the TCPA, a speaker who had been sued in a SLAPP case that was dismissed would receive attorney's fees and costs, and the law also allowed the court to award sanctions against the plaintiff. However, HB 2988 would make the awarding of attorney's fees discretionary instead of mandatory, and potentially put a defendant on the hook for the plaintiff's legal fees at a judge's discretion. The TCPA also includes an automatic stay of discovery, meaning defendants using its protections can avoid the arduous and intrusive process of exchanging information, documents and other materials before a trial. Sb 336, which has an identical companion bill in the House, HB 2459, would repeal that provision that stays discovery and trial in a SLAPP case "until such time that an appeals court has ruled, if asked to do so, on an anti-SLAPP motion," according to an article in the Institute for Free Speech. "If this bill passes, anyone targeted by a SLAPP lawsuit in Texas will have to battle in trial court and appeal court simultaneously," conservative commentator Ben Ferguson wrote about SB 336 in Human Events. "That's not just a procedural change—it's a death sentence for small media outlets, grassroots conservatives, and people like me who rely on that protection to survive the legal attacks hurled our way." True Crime Reporters Blocked Outside Courthouse Where Karen Read Is On Trial File First Amendment Lawsuit "The TCPA protects Texans across the ideological spectrum, from grassroots activists to government watchdogs to on-line reviewers," James Bopp, general counsel of the National Right to Life Committee, wrote last week. "Weakening the TCPA would embolden litigious corporations, political operatives, and deep-pocketed individuals to use the courts as a cudgel against their opponents. The impact would be devastating not just for those sued, but for the fundamental principles of free speech and open debate in Texas." Supporters of the proposals say the anti-SLAPP law can be used mischievously to gum up court proceedings and delay litigation on matters unrelated to free speech. The Texas Tribune reported on one example involving a contractor who filed an anti-SLAPP motion to halt a case brought by a developer over an apartment construction project. The contractor froze the case a month before trial even though the motion was eventually ruled to be frivolous, and the developer's lawyer said the delay cost his client millions. "This is a perfect example where a shield has become an abusive sword," Republican State Rep. Jeff Leach said during a hearing on similar legislation to reform the TCPA in 2023. Republican State Rep. Mano DeAyala, who is sponsoring HB 2988, told Fox News Digital on Monday that he brought the bill forward in an effort to keep the law from being abused by bad-faith actors who were "cluttering up" the courts with flimsy SLAPP motions. "I love the TCPA," he said. "I think it's a wonderful, wonderful procedural step … But there's no disincentive for filing the motion because there's no consequence for a bad motion. So until you find the consequence for a bad motion, you're going to still see it abused. This was my effort in trying to fix this to stop the abuses." DeAyala has accused critics of misrepresenting his bill's goals, responding to one on X that he's specifically trying to protect the TCPA. "The TCPA as intended is alive and well and especially the scenario in your post," he wrote last week to someone saying his bill would kill the TCPA. "The bill does not change that. It simply provides some protection to the little guy from the bullies who misuse and abuse the TCPA." Texas State Sen. Bryan Hughes, the sponsor of SB 336, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Click Here To Read More About Media And Culture Advocates for the TCPA say the protections therein cut across the political spectrum; a liberal journalist or activist organization would benefit just as much as a conservative one from being able to speak out with less fear of reprisal. They also reject the notion that the reform bills being considered would clean up court overcrowding, saying it could have the reverse effect. "They may not sue you to begin with," Prather told Fox News Digital, giving examples like restaurants suing patrons for bad online reviews. "It serves as a deterrent against those bullies that want to use the courtroom to silence you. It's a huge deterrent, and that's really important."Original article source: Texas legislation could weaken protections against frivolous lawsuits, warn free speech advocates
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Drake Wants to See Universal Music Group's Emails About Kendrick Lamar's Diss Track
After settling a legal dispute with iHeartMedia over Kendrick Lamar's 'Not Like Us,' Drake is moving for discovery on multiple fronts from Universal Music Group, which he alleges made illegal payments to the radio company to boost airplay for the diss track. A federal judge on Tuesday denied UMG's bid to pause discovery in a defamation lawsuit accusing it of launching a campaign to create a viral hit out of the song. The order was issued a day after Drake moved for permission in Texas state court to depose a UMG representative and the production of certain documents relating to whether the label was actually a clearinghouse for promoting the track or actively schemed to promote it by covertly paying radio stations. More from The Hollywood Reporter Carl Dean, Dolly Parton's Husband of Nearly 60 Years Who Inspired 'Jolene,' Dies at 82 Tate McRae Earns First U.S. No. 1 Album With 'So Close to What' Chappell Roan Duets With Elton John on 'Pink Pony Club' for Electric Oscar Party Performance Drake's bid for discovery follows his settlement with iHeartMedia last week to resolve a petition to take the depositions of executives at the company. Terms weren't disclosed, though a monetary payment wasn't involved. 'In exchange for documents that showed iHeart did nothing wrong, Drake agreed to drop his petition,' a company spokesperson said in a statement. Drake (Republic Records), who declined to comment, and Lamar (Interscope Records) are represented by different divisions of UMG. In a lawsuit filed earlier this year in New York federal court, the Toronto rapper claimed that UMG, which holds exclusive control over licensing of 'Not Like Us,' spread defamatory allegations that he's a pedophile by making secret payments and offering reduced licensing rates to third parties to promote the song, among other things. 'According to confidential sources recently made known to Drake, certain UMG labels have engaged in pay-for-play arrangements with radio and streaming services to boost the popularity of specific songs, and used bots to artificially inflate streaming numbers,' wrote Michael Gottlieb, a lawyer for Drake, in the complaint. In Texas state court, UMG moved to dismiss Drake's petition under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, which provides for the early dismissal of legal actions intended to chill free speech. It said that its promotion of the song is protected activity under the First Amendment. Citing the same law, Drake argues that he's entitled to discovery to test whether UMG is actually covered by the TCPA. This includes the deposition of a UMG representative who will be asked about the company's promotion strategy for 'Not Like Us,' the terms of any deals the label had with iHeartMedia and streaming services, promotional agreement with influencers and financial records showing revenue earned from the song, among other things. 'Without this discovery, Drake cannot fairly test or refute the factual basis for UMG's claims that, for example, it was acting merely as a 'clearinghouse' in promoting the song, or that it was not doing so in its 'capacity as a seller' of goods or services,' writes John Zavitsanos, another lawyer for the singer, in the motion. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas also turned down UMG's motion to stay discovery. The label had argued that the case shouldn't proceed until the court considers its bid to dismiss the lawsuit. And in a move that could support Drake's claims against iHeartMedia, the Federal Communications Commission last week said it was looking into whether the company is compelling artists to perform at its upcoming country music festival for free or reduced pay in exchange for more favorable airplay, which could violate government rules requiring broadcasters to disclose payments for airing certain programming. In his lawsuit against UMG, Drake said that UMG violated so-called 'payola' rules by making illegal payments to radio statements to promote 'Not Like Us' without disclosing it to listeners. Best of The Hollywood Reporter How the Warner Brothers Got Their Film Business Started Meet the World Builders: Hollywood's Top Physical Production Executives of 2023 Men in Blazers, Hollywood's Favorite Soccer Podcast, Aims for a Global Empire
