CNN may lose its bid in the California Supreme Court to use the state’s anti-SLAPP law to block a black ex-producer’s discrimination lawsuit. The anti-SLAPP law protects free speech from lawsuits when public interest is at stake. Justice Carol Corrigan questioned whether the court had to choose between First Amendment freedoms and blocking plaintiffs from bringing discrimination lawsuits. CNN argued that editorial decisions including hiring and assignments qualify as contributing to public speech under the anti-SLAPP law. (Bloomberg News, May 7, 2019, by Joyce E. Cutler)
A California appeals court ruled in 2016 that the anti-SLAPP law did not apply to Stanley Wilson’s case as discrimination cannot be construed as free speech. (Law Firm Newswire, January 25, 2017,
In another case involving the anti-SLAPP before the California Supreme Court, the court ruled that a streaming service can continue with its libel suit against DoubleVerify that provides reports about entertainment platforms to potential advertisers. The court found that the reports were confidential and not in the public forum so did not qualify for anti-SLAPP protection. (Courthouse News Service, May 6, 2019, by Matthew Renda)