SLAPP-happy political hit jobs are no cause for alarm.

the solution exists, but takes work

From Citizen Lane:

I dislike the notion that the law marks any distinction between “core” and “fringe” First Amendment protections. All speech, saving that speech which falls into one of the historical categories of unprotected speech, deserves the same protection from government overreach.

And yet, at the same time, I find no philosophical quibble with the Court’s jurisprudence regarding something like “commercial speech,” which permits many more regulations aimed at preventing things like fraud.

So it is with this in mind that I turn to the recent First Amendment news out of Texas, where a wealthy donor to an incumbent officeholder filed a defamation lawsuit against that incumbent’s general election opponent.

Defamation lawsuits begin life under a cloud of illegitimacy, because the First Amendment protection on speech is so great. And in particular we are careful to avoid letting defamation suits be brought for strategic purposes, even going so far as to give them a cutting acronym, the SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Texas, in a rare moment of legislative competence, adopted a strong anti-SLAPP statute, the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which provides for an expeditious dismissal of SLAPP suits and a mandatory requirement that a SLAPP filer pay the attorney’s fees of the prevailing defamation defendant.

In a recent Twitter thread , I broke down the Kelcey Warren suit against Robert “Beto” O’Rourke as best I knew how, with acidity and bile for all comers. But the Twitter format is (intentionally) limiting, so for more careful and astute readers, here is a more philosophical breakdown.

Image credit: Teen Vogue