Reported / Citable
Background
Maury Blackman’s 2021 felony domestic-violence arrest did not lead to charges, and a court later sealed the arrest records under California law. The San Francisco Police Department nevertheless released its investigative report without restriction to a third party, and an anonymous source sent the report to journalist Jack Poulson. Poulson wrote about the arrest and related events online through platforms operated by Substack and Tech Inquiry.
Blackman sued Poulson and the platform entities on numerous privacy, negligence, interference, and statutory theories. The defendants brought anti-SLAPP motions, arguing the lawsuit targeted protected reporting on a matter of public interest and that the First Amendment and section 230 of the Communications Decency Act defeated the claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the orders striking the complaint and awarding anti-SLAPP fees. Poulson’s posts were writings in public forums about the conduct and trustworthiness of the chief executive of a government contractor operating in the security and intelligence field, placing them within protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.
At the second step, Blackman could not show minimal merit. The First Amendment protects truthful publication of lawfully obtained information on a matter of public significance absent a state interest of the highest order. The journalists did not participate in the police department’s release or obtain the report unlawfully, and California’s sealing statutes did not supply a constitutionally sufficient basis to punish their publication. The court also upheld section 230 protection for the platform defendants because Blackman failed to develop claim-specific arguments showing that their asserted duties were independent of publishing third-party content.
Key Takeaways
- A sealed arrest does not automatically permit liability against a publisher that lawfully receives and truthfully reports the underlying information.
- Anti-SLAPP analysis focuses on the acts supplying the elements of each claim, not simply the plaintiff’s characterization of the lawsuit as privacy or statutory enforcement.
- A source’s possible violation of confidentiality rules is distinct from unlawful acquisition by the publisher.
- Challenges to section 230 immunity must analyze each cause of action and identify a duty independent of the defendant’s role as publisher or speaker.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a sharp line between remedies against government actors who wrongly disclose sealed information and claims seeking to punish downstream reporting. Media organizations, newsletter writers, and online platforms gain substantial protection when they neither procured an unlawful disclosure nor published falsehoods.
For privacy plaintiffs, the case underscores the need to plead and prove unlawful acquisition, falsity, or another theory that survives constitutional scrutiny. It also illustrates the cost risk of pursuing publication-based claims that fall within California’s anti-SLAPP statute.