Victory! EFF Helps Defeat Meritless Lawsuit Against Journalist

Jack Poulson is a reporter, and when a confidential source sent him the police report of a tech CEO’s arrest for felony domestic violence, he did what journalists do: reported the news.  

The CEO, Maury Blackman, didn’t like that. So he sued Poulson—along with Amazon Web Service, Substack, and Poulson’s non-profit, Tech Inquiry—to try and force Poulson to take down his articles about the arrest. Blackman argued that a court order sealing the arrest allowed him to censor the internet—despite decades of Supreme Court and California Court of Appeals precedent to the contrary.  

This is a classic SLAPP: strategic lawsuit against public participation. Fortunately, California’s anti-SLAPP statute provides a way for defendants to swiftly defeat baseless claims designed to chill their free speech.  

The court granted Poulson’s motion to strike Blackman’s complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute on Tuesday.  

In its order, the court agreed that the First Amendment protects Poulson’s right to publish and report on the incident report.  

This is an important ruling.  

Under Bartnicki v. Vopper, the First Amendment protects journalists who report on truthful matters of public concern, even when the information they are reporting on was obtained illegally by someone else. Without it, reporters would face liability when they report on information provided by whistleblowers that companies or the government wants to keep secret.  

Those principles were upheld here: Although courts have the power to seal records in appropriate cases, if and when someone provides a copy of a sealed record to a reporter, the reporter shouldn’t be forced to ignore the newsworthy information in that record. Instead, they should be allowed to do what journalists do: report the news.  

And thanks to the First Amendment, a journalist who hasn’t done anything illegal to obtain  the information has the right to publish it.  

The court agreed that Poulson’s First Amendment defense defeated all of Blackman’s claims. As the court said: 

"This court is persuaded that the First Amendment’s protections for the publication of truthful speech concerning matters of public interest vitiate Blackman’s merits showing…in this case there is no evidence that Poulson and the other defendants knew the arrest was sealed before Poulson reported on it, and all defendants’ actions in not taking down the arrest information after Blackman informed them of the sealing order was not so wrongful or unlawful that they are not protected."

The court also agreed that CEOs like Blackman cannot rewrite history by obtaining court orders that seal unflattering information—like an arrest for felony domestic violence. Blackman argued that, because, under California law, sealed arrests are “deemed” not to have occurred for certain legal purposes, reporting that he had been arrested was somehow false—and actionable. It isn’t.  

The court agreed with Poulson: statutory language that alleviates some of the consequences of an arrest “cannot alter how past events unfolded.”  

Simply put, no one can use the legal system to rewrite history.  

EFF is thrilled that the court agrees.