From the Introduction to an amicus brief filed by Gill Sperlein and Ronnie London (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) on behalf of FIRE, the First Amendment Coalition, and me in Blackman v. Substack, Inc.:
The trial court correctly granted Defendants' special motion to strike in holding Blackman's claims arose from activity protected by California's anti-SLAPP statute and that he failed to demonstrate a probability of success on those claims. That ruling safeguards an essential concern of the First Amendment: the ability of journalists to report on matters of public concern using lawfully obtained information. A contrary decision—one that would permit private parties like Blackman to impose liability on journalists for publishing truthful information of public interest—would violate Supreme Court precedent.
"Blackman was arrested in December 2021 for domestic violence at a time when he was the CEO of Premise Data[.]" "[P]olice officers prepared a report ('Incident Report') describing the incident[.]" "No charges were ultimately pursued against Blackman," and "the Superior Court entered an order sealing the arrest records under Penal Code sections 851.91 and 851.92[.]" Defendant Poulson "published a blog post reporting the arrest and relating what was described in the Incident Report," and "there is no evidence [he] and the other defendants knew the arrest was sealed before [he] reported on it[.]"
Before ultimately filing the action below, Blackman pressured Poulson to remove the information from the internet. And he received help doing so from San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, who "contact[ed] at least some of the defendants to request that they remove information about the Incident Report."
Aware of these efforts, and as regular opponents of resorts to legal process to deny the public access to information about public issues, amicus Volokh sought to write about Blackman's censorial efforts, while amicus FAC and LaRoe wanted to comment publicly—including in the press, on FAC's website, and in public letters to lawmakers or other officials—about the risks to press freedom and transparency exemplified by the efforts of Blackman and the government to suppress Poulson's publication. But they were concerned that they, too, would be targeted by Blackman and the City Attorney.
