starting here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... -chickens/
Adam Lee, at Daylight Atheism, in a comment at his post on counting chickens wrote:Although it doesn't define the activity in question as a felony, it does seem that New Mexico, where Radford's lawsuit was filed, has an anti-SLAPP law. That could make the outcome of this case quite interesting.
IANAL and all but, I don't see that anti-SLAPP applies at all in the KS/BR case.
Here's the page Lee links to:
http://www.legal-project.org/149/anti-s ... s-by-state
This one explains it a little better, IMO:
http://www.anti-slapp.org/your-states-f ... tection/#N and says, under New Mexico:
N.M. STAT. §§ 38-2-9.1 – 38-2-9.2 (2001)
Statements in connection with a public hearing or public meeting in a quasi-judicial proceeding before a tribunal or decision-making body of the state or a subdivision of the state are protected.
I looked at New Mexico's anti-SLAPP law by going
here then searching 38-2-9.1 ("Special motion to dismiss unwarranted or specious lawsuits; procedures; sanctions; severability") and 38-2-9.2 (Findings and purpose).
There's nothing in the KS/BR case that seems to fit this:
Any action seeking money damages against a person for conduct or speech undertaken or made in connection with a public hearing or public meeting in a quasi-judicial proceeding before a tribunal or decision-making body of any political subdivision of the state is subject to a special motion to dismiss, motion for judgment on the pleadings, or motion for summary judgment that shall be considered by the court on a priority or expedited basis to ensure the early consideration of the issues raised by the motion and to prevent the unnecessary expense of litigation.
and in fact this seems more applicable:
Nothing in this section limits or prohibits the exercise of a right or remedy of a party granted pursuant to another constitutional, statutory, common law or administrative provision, including civil actions for defamation or malicious abuse of process.
Popehat's explanation of anti-SLAPP:
http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/07/why-y ... -slapping/
So, again prefacing with AFAICT/IANAL, I think Lee's excitement over anti-SLAPP is misplaced in this case.
