<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden"><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p>When the rich and powerful try to use the court to silence negative reporting about themselves, it’s worth calling out that behavior for what it is: an attack on free speech. This is why EFF is happy to stand up for reporters who find themselves in that situation.</p>
<p>The California Court of Appeals <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/blackman-v-substack-opinion">upheld</a> a lower court’s decision to strike a former <a href="https://jackpoulson.substack.com/p/premise-data-confirms-secret-military?utm_source=publication-search">Premise Data</a> CEO’s meritless lawsuit against a journalist who exposed the CEO’s secret arrest for felony domestic violence. Jack Poulson, the writer and publisher of <a href="https://jackpoulson.substack.com/"><em>All Source Intelligenc</em>e</a>, reported details from the San Francisco Police Department’s report of the arrest and posted a copy of the report after receiving the document from a confidential source. Poulson later learned the arrest record had been sealed. The CEO, Maury Blackman, <a href="https://www.eff.org/cases/blackman-v-substack-et-al">sued</a> Poulson, Substack, AWS, and another organization for damages to try and force the removal of Poulson’s reporting from the internet.</p>
<p>The trial court <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/victory-eff-helps-defeat-meritless-lawsuit-against-journalist">tossed the entire case</a> under California’s anti-SLAPP statute—SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation” and describes cases where the goal isn’t vindication in court so much as it is costing someone time, money, and peace of mind fighting the lawsuit. To fight SLAPP cases, states like California have passed anti-SLAPP laws, which are invaluable tools for protecting the First Amendment. California’s law provides an avenue for early dismissals of these baseless lawsuits, which curtails their intended effect on the target. Blackman appealed the court’s decision, arguing that a court order sealing the arrest overrides Poulson’s right to report the news.</p>
<p>The Court of Appeals correctly rejected Blackman’s appeal and affirmed the decision to throw out the case. The court held that the First Amendment protects Poulson’s publications. As the court explained in its decision, “the First Amendment protects the lawfully obtained truthful publication of the information at issue absent ‘a need to further a state interest of the highest order,’” a standard that Blackman’s privacy interests do not satisfy. The Court also found that Poulson, as the publisher of the <em>All Source Intelligence</em> newsletter, was protected by California’s Shield Law, relying on <a href="https://www.eff.org/cases/apple-v-does">precedent established by EFF</a> in 2006. The Court also affirmed that Substack and the other website, which had merely temporarily hosted a copy of the arrest record, were immunized from liability by Section 230.</p>
<p>This decision is a win for free speech, for Jack Poulson, and for everybody.  </p>

</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-related-cases field--type-node-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Related Cases:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/cases/blackman-v-substack-et-al">Blackman v. Substack, et al.</a></div></div></div>