Plaintiffs were doctors who ran websites that exposed health frauds. The defendants were advocates of alternative medicine. The plaintiffs filed suit alleging that defendants had published a number of defamatory statements on alternative medicine websites. Defendants moved to strike under California's anti-SLAPP laws (Code Civ. Pro. Sec 425.16), which were designed to counter lawsuits that chill the free exercise of speech. The court granted the motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP laws because 1)the statements concerned alternative medicine, a highly controversial issue that is a matter of public concern, and 2)the plaintiffs were unable to establish a probability of prevailing on their claims.
Opinion at http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dldefam/barrett.html
Keywords: free speech, defamation
| 