Georgetown Law Prof's Injunction Against Antagonist Website Tossed
An appeals court in New York has ruled that an injunction against an online tabloid that targeted a Georgetown law professor with criticism was an unlawful prior restraint on speech.
November 16, 2018 at 12:11 PM
3 minute read
A court-ordered injunction preventing a financial news blog from posting critical comments about a Georgetown law professor was too broad and constituted an unlawful prior restraint on speech, a New York State appeals court ruled Thursday.
The New York State Appellate Division, First Department vacated a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order enjoining online tabloid TheBlot from posting articles about Christopher Brummer. That injunction also required the site to remove previous articles about Brummer.
But the injunction, issued by a lower court in June 2017, went too far, the First Department ruled.
“The speech at issue, as offensive as it is, cannot reasonably be construed as truly threatening or inciting violence against plaintiff,” reads the opinion, which clarifies that TheBlot still may be found to have libeled Brummer.
But Brummer's attorney Daren Garcia, a partner at Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, said that the decision may not protect defendant Benjamin Wey in the long term.
“The court recognizes that these online attacks are 'grotesque' and 'scurrilous'—by definition, defamatory.” Garcia said in a statement after the ruling. “In the end, the longer they remain online, the more damage Mr. Wey causes as he finds himself, once again, facing a jury and the prospect of millions of dollars in civil liability.”
Tom Fini, an attorney with New York firm Catafago Fini who represented Wey, on Friday called the ruling “a major victory for free speech.”
The case dates back to 2014, when Brummer, a finance law expert, sat on an appellate panel in the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority that heard the appeals of two stockbrokers who had been banned from associating with any FINRA-regulated firms—Talman Harris and William Scholander. TheBlot, a site owned by Wey, vigorously defended Harris and Scholander and attacked Brummer.
“The attacks on plaintiff have included—in addition to name-calling, ridicule and various scurrilous accusations—juxtapositions of plaintiff's likeness to graphic images of the lynching of African Americans, and statements that the banning of Harris, who is African American, constituted a 'lynching,'” the appellate court's opinion reads. (Brummer and Scholander are also African American.)
Brummer sued, arguing that the blog posts amounted to threats against him and constitute libel. The lower court agreed and last year issued an injunction against TheBlot.
The case attracted the attention of several First Amendment advocates, including University of California, Los Angeles School of Law professor Eugene Volokh, who filed an amicus brief on half of Wey and TheBlot's right to publish inflammatory material about Brummer, who in 2016 was nominated to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by President Barack Obama. (His nomination was withdrawn last year.)
“I think the appellate court got it extremely right,” said Volokh in an interview Friday, adding that courts cannot enjoin such a broad array of comments. “Ultimately, the well-settled legal rule [about prior restraint] was applied here.”
Both Volokh and the appellate court opinion concluded that the lynching comments that appeared on TheBlot were a reference to FINRA's treatment of Harris and not a direct threat to Brummer.
“While this analogy is incendiary and highly inappropriate, plaintiff has not established that any reasonable viewer would have understood the posts as threatening or calling for violence against him,” the opinion reads.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAfter Fining Investment Firms Billions for Lost Text Messages, Regulators Turn Scrutiny to Audio Recordings
Pop-Up Window Does Not Prove 'Clearly Communicated' Arbitration Clause, 8th Circuit Says
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250