Anonymous blogging is First Amendment protected speech -- as we knew all along

You may recall the case of the blogger/PI who sued two bloggers in Beaumont because they made fun of him, sucking Google (as blogger.com) and others into his vindictive legal wrath.

He lost at the Texas Supreme Court, and now he has lost again. First, from the Southeast Texas Record:

On Monday a local judge denied Philip Klein's petition to take the depositions of Google and Beaumont attorney Brent Coon, effectively ending the political commentator's three-year crusade to unmask two area bloggers.

Through his companies, Klein filed the petition against the Operation Kleinwatch and Sam the Eagle blogs, as well as Google and its subsidiary, blogger.com, on Aug. 26, 2009, in Jefferson County District Court.

Klein alleged Operation Kleinwatch and Sam the Eagle engaged in a pattern of libel and defamation, invasion of privacy and use of copyrighted images.

In his petitions, Klein claimed the bloggers defamed him by posting a parody of Dog Fancy magazine in which he was depicted under the caption, "Fat Men Who Love Their Dogs Too Much."

Nonetheless, on Jan. 30 Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, denied Klein's verified third amended petition, ending his efforts to investigate claims.

"This ruling reaffirms the important principle that disgruntled public figures may not abuse pre-suit discovery to ferret out personal information about the people who criticize them," said Jeffrey L. Dorrell, a Houston attorney who defended the bloggers, in a press release.

And from said press release:

Ending almost three years of litigation, Judge Donald Floyd of the 172nd District Court in Jefferson County on January 30, 2012, entered a final order denying Beaumont private investigator and local media personality Philip R. Klein’s request to take presuit depositions of Internet search giant Google, prominent local attorney Brent Coon, and others to discover the identity of two anonymous bloggers. The bloggers publish satirical parody and other biting criticism directed at Klein on blogs known as “Operation Kleinwatch” and “Sam The Eagle.”

Here's the response from OK:

After repeated attempts by our attorneys and much foot-dragging by Philip R. Klein and his attorney, John S. Morton, Esq., an evidentiary hearing was held on Jan. 17, in which PRK introduced NO evidence to support his claims that we invaded his privacy, stole his copyrighted work, inflicted emotional duress on him and his family, or defamed him.

We did, however, admit that we posted a parody of a dog magazine with Philip on the front cover - the title of the article: "Fat Men Who Love Their Dogs Too Much," as a parody of this piece from MSNBC. Draw your own conclusions, but according to Philip's arguments, he apparently believes we exposed his penchant for dating farm animals.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here's the response from Sam The Eagle:

On January 30, 2012, over two and a half years since Sillip instigated his Philly lawsuit, Judge Donald Floyd struck down all of Philip's allegations, denied all of Philip Klein's requests, and confirmed that Philip Klein was the biggest blowhard liar in Southeast Texas.

Klein's blog is the Southeast Texas Political Review, a badly written, poorly sourced ultraconservative freak show covering the Golden Triangle. Klein is also a private investigator, which means he knows lots of crooked attorneys who pay him for various shovelfuls of dirt he is able to unearth.

I would post his response to his losing his case yet again, but it's already been removed.

Philip Klein, quite simply, is a moron. To be both candid and a little cruel, he's just another one of those conservatives of low intelligence you may have read about recently. And there are plenty of lawyers -- even in places like Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange -- willing to take his money to watch him demonstrate it.

The importance of this case (to those of us who blog) as precedent really can't be overstated. I do not blog anonymously, of course; and no one who does should have any fear of legal retribution from someone who wishes to out them just because they don't like what they wrote. Sarcasm -- even excessive sarcasm -- as political insult goes at least as far back as 1800 ... in the battle for the presidency between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Amazingly, FOX News found the archival videotape of the 19th-century political ads and here it is:



I sure do miss hearing the phrase "hideous hermaphroditical character" tossed around at the Republican debates. Don't you?

Things like First Amendment rights to free speech are usually obvious to every honest and decent American, but rarely are to TeaBaggers with brains too thick and skin too thin.

April 3rd unified primary hits the circular file

DBN:

The D.C. District Court three judge panel entered a order in the preclearance case telling parties that they should not expect a ruling for at least 30 days:

The Court directs the parties to comply fully with the page limits and briefing schedule set in this matter so that it can be timely resolved and also notifies the parties that this Court does not anticipate issuing any order within the next 30 days.

A number of participants in the case had been expecting the court to rule by February 15 and some had felt that a ruling might even be possible next week.

This afternoon, in light of today's D.C. Court advisory telling the state and plaintiffs in the preclearance case that they should not expect a ruling for at least 30 days, the Texas Democratic Party (TDP) filed an advisory with the San Antonio District Court, that has jurisdiction over interim district maps and the primary election schedule, saying it no long believed a unified primary was still possible on any date in April, absent a near term settlement between the state and plaintiffs in the interim redistricting case before the San Antonio District Court.

And that settlement is on ice, as we learned this past Monday.

So the Republicans will likely hold their presidential hag beauty contest on the April 3rd date; the rest of the Republicans and Democrats will wait until April, perhaps, for court decisions, with primaries not until the end of May or June. There might still be some short filing deadlines if the San Antonio court releases maps by February 6, but with the DC court's pronouncement they are not likely to feel any deadline heat to do so.

Meh. At least the pressure's off.

Update: Michael Li, as always.

(Thursday) morning, the San Antonio court entered an scheduling order, directing briefing by February 10 at 6 p.m. on a number of issues related to interim maps and setting a hearing/status conference for February 15 at 8 a.m. (so much for Valentine’s Day for lovelorn lawyers).

The court’s order is here.

The issues the court asked to be addressed include:

• the meaning of the Supreme Court’s ‘not insubstantial’ standard, including the proper allocation of the burden of proof,

• how the county line rule should be applied in interim maps,

• the applicable law on coalition and crossover districts and how it should be applied for purposes of interim maps,

• whether the court has the authority to waive preclearance requirements for new precinct boundaries

The court also asked that the parties submit propped findings of fact and conclusions of law by February 10.  The court’s order said that it was not announcing an election schedule at this time.

A week's worth of Mexican sweat

Via Democratic Blog News, the Austin Chronicle (their emphasis):

There were rumors floating around all weekend that there could be a deal struck as early as today, but with all parties heading to DC to catch closing arguments in the preclearance hearing tomorrow, Jan. 31, that seems unlikely. The Mexican American Legislative Caucus told the Chronicle this morning that a deal is not imminent, even though they are all working towards some kind of agreement.

MALC (and particularly chair Rep. Trez Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio) and MALDEF are clearly most interested in creating the largest number possible of Hispanic opportunity districts. However, that could clash severely with both the interests of the other plaintiffs (many of whom are looking for more Democratic opportunity seats) and the historic coalition between African-American and Hispanic groups. Throughout this process, LULAC and the NAACP have been very much on the same page, and have not always been in complete agreement with MALC and MALDEF.

You may also recall the reports last month that African American legislators and associated interest groups don't care much for districts drawn to favor Latinos in somewhat exclusive manner. There's a rich quote from bloghermano Greg Wythe here with respect to that. Continuing...

And what about the time table? The problem with any deal is that the San Antonio panel ordered that there has to be unanimity between the parties, or all contested districts have to be submitted to be redrawn. The state's seeming desperation to avoid shifting the primaries again might add some strength to the plaintiffs' side of the table, as they can extract more as the state keeps clock-watching to hit that Feb. 6 deadline. As Martinez-Fischer told the Associated Press, the state is willing to negotiate and "something’s motivating that."

The time crunch means the plaintiffs can dangle the equal representation terms of Section Two of the Voting Rights Act over the assembled heads of Attorney General Greg Abbott's team. However, the DC District Court is expected to rule this week on whether the legislature's maps violate the preclearance terms of Section Five of the VRA. There are undoubtedly voices in the room suggesting that the plaintiffs would be in a much stronger negotiating position – and that the state would have little legal wiggle room – if they just wait a couple more days.

And the most recent update to that post has this (with my emphasis now):

...LULAC attorney Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. confirmed that his clients (who are still pushing for coalition districts) want to wait for the DC ruling, and that was the stated position of all plaintiffs to the San Antonio panel before this weekend. "As to negotiations," he wrote, "they have totally broken down as of now. I am sure they will resume but I doubt an agreement if at all by this Monday so I don't expect an April 3rd election."

If this is going to settle out at all, it will be the Republicans giving something up of significant value. Some reports indicate that Abbott is trying to sow discord among the plaintiffs but it doesn't look like that's working.

Waiting for the Redistricting Settlement Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is stocking up on unhealthy snacks and adult beverages -- in preparation to celebrate the almost-ready-to-break news on Texas redistricting as well as Sunday's Super Bowl -- as it brings you this week's roundup.

BossKitty at TruthHugger is concerned that the frivolous issues the Tea Party Republicans scream about -- and boo and cheer about at their debates -- are a complete distraction from the serious problems facing America. Character slaughter in the battle for a Republican presidential candidate does not demonstrate who the best candidate may be, so Divided and Apathetic We Fall.

In addition to all of the redistricting litigation, the state of Texas has also filed a lawsuit to get the odious voter ID law precleared. Off the Kuff has a look.

Texas always ranks high on the list of "business friendly" states. WCNews at Eye On Williamson says It's time for Texas to become a top 10 state for the rest of us.

A Houston Not-So-Much 'Stros rant, starring Roger Metzger as Ron Paul (or maybe the other way around), is posted at PDiddie's Brains and Eggs.

At TexasKaos, lightseeker explains that Rick Santorum's wife DIDNOT have an abortion, but therein lies both a morality tale and an advocacy for a sane truce in the choice wars. Give it a read: Abortion, Choice and Absolutist Morality.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme, like everyone else, knows that the Texas Supreme Court is crony capitalism central.

Neil at Texas Liberal made a post about the great resources at the C-SPAN program archive, and at the new American wing of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. These are first rate, free and accessible websites that respect the fact that everybody has the ability to understand complex things, and that everybody has the abilty to engage in political action.

Satisfying pre-conclusions to Texas redistricting

I have been wondering why the state of Texas (read: Attorney General Greg Abbott) has been so suddenly willing to abandon its concurrent legal strategies to force discriminatory districts on us all, and reach a settlement that will reportedly favor Democrats, Latino organizations, and others fighting them.

Here's the insight I have been seeking to what, by every appearance to me, looked like folding a winning hand. First, the indomitable Michael Li (go read the entire thing for his cogent observations at the scene of Friday's hearing, some of which I put in this post that came from his Twitter feed):

It’s not clear why the state’s position has shifted so radically. Theories range from pressure to keep Texas relevant to the GOP presidential nomination to concerns about the ruling that the D.C. court might issue to worries of incumbent legislators about a split primary. Or maybe it’s just that Texas Republicans, faced with few good options, are figuring that they can always try redistricting again in January 2013.

And Paul Burka:

Abbott may find himself on the hot seat again, as critics are sure to question (again) his decision to go forum shopping by making an end run around the Department of Justice: going straight to the Republican-dominated district court of the District of Columbia and moving for summary judgment to preclear the state’s congressional and legislative maps. But the D.C. Court found potential evidence of discriminatory intent, and suddenly Abbott’s litigation strategy didn’t look so clever. To be fair to Abbott, he didn’t have much choice; the House supermajority was dead set on maximizing seats for both the House and the Congressional maps. The impulse to overreach is common to large majorities, regardless of party. But the result is that the state’s legal team ran out of time, which would not have occurred had Abbott taken the traditional route of seeking preclearance from the Department of Justice.

And so, in a single stroke, the Republican Legislature has managed to resurrect the Democratic party from the ashes of the 2010 election and the 2003 Tom DeLay midcensus redistricting.

We'll know for sure soon enough, possibly as early as tomorrow.

What Oakland looked like yesterday

Saturday's protests -- the most turbulent since Oakland police forcefully dismantled an Occupy encampment in November -- came just days after the group said it planned to use a vacant building as a social center and political hub and threatened to try to shut down the port, occupy the airport and take over City Hall.

Springtime will be coming soon.