FOX 13 Investigates: Lawsuit against rural newspaper is test for new Utah law (lawfare protection)

Fox 13 ^ | September 2, 2024 | Nate Carlisle

[TheDon]

...

In December, Aston sued the Chronicle Progress in state court. He claims defamation, contending the Chronicle Progress published “false and defamatory statements.”

The Chronicle Progress in Wednesday’s hearing will ask the lawsuit be dismissed because of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. Passed in 2023, the Utah Legislature was concerned that lawsuits — and the cost of litigation — were being used to silence First Amendment activities.

The Act provides a legal mechanism for a judge to quickly determine whether slander lawsuits have merit and to dismiss such suits if they don’t. The defendants also have opportunities to recover their legal fees.

At a Utah Senate hearing in January 2023, media law attorney Jeff Hunt testified in favor of the bill. He was representing a media coalition that includes FOX 13.

“And the purpose, I think it’s important to emphasize,” Hunt testified, “in bringing these lawsuits is not to vindicate someone’s legal rights, but rather to intimidate citizens and subject them to costly litigation for speaking out on matters of public concern.”

...

[TheDon]

Nice to see a legislature doing something about lawfare.

[PAR35]

Should be easy enough to prove whether or not he filed any bankruptcy cases and whether there were any adversary proceedings filed.

[PeterPrinciple]

When asked whether she thought the newspaper was the reason Aston’s project hasn’t blossomed, Mecham replied: “I think our communities can think for themselves. They don’t need someone telling them how to do it.”

---

So buy an ad in the newspaper and present your case.

[fruser1]

I’m not that encouraged that this is a result of politicians being concerned about “lawfare”. It looks like the intent of this is to add protection to a slandering press (which is generally part of the problem now). So I wouldn’t be surprised if media moguls donated heavily to those who sponsored this bill and those who needed a little extra nudge to vote for it.

In regards to actual lawfare, this might apply to suits brought against Giuliani et al for slander in regards to voting machines and poll workers, which would be good.

But, to me, that’s only been one small part of lawfare. The bulk is:

-Suing politicians for their statements, e.g. Trump for saying march on the capital (while simultaneously ignoring the “peaceful” part), or Trump on that “muslim ban”, not because of the text of the order, but based on statements made during the campaign.

-Suing bakeries over and over because they won’t do gay decorations.

-Suing charitable hospitals over and over because they won’t do birth control or abortion.

-Suing development projects over and over because of purported harm to the earth.

So I think this law might just happen to apply to some suits, but that’s just coincidence (and most likely an oversight - I wouldn’t be surprised if they amend to add text that this only applies to the press).

It actually looks like, same-ole, same-ole to me.

[Albion Wilde]

When asked whether she thought the newspaper was the reason Aston’s project hasn’t blossomed, Mecham replied: “I think our communities can think for themselves. They don’t need someone telling them how to do it.”

So buy an ad in the newspaper and present your case.

The developer, you mean? The newspaper did present its pros and cons, which are now the subject of the lawsuit. The lifelong newspaper subscriber, Ms. Meecham, was merely asked her personal opinion.