Legislative History. Senate Bill 278, authored by Sen. James J. Cox (Dem., Dist. 27), passed the State Senate 25 - 13, then passed unanimously in the House. It was signed July 2, 1999 by the governor and became effective Aug. 15, 1999.
A university administrator sued a website author for defamation after publication of a report alleging mismanagement and abuse of office. The court holds that a website author is a "person" authorized to use the special motion to strike even though he is not a member of the media. Defendant met his burden in bringing a special motion to strike, proving that plaintiff's cause of action arose from defendant's actions in furtherance of his constitutional right of free speech and in connection with a public issue. Once a defendant meets his burden of proving that the cause of action arises from his constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish a probability of success on his claim. Plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to show the defendant had knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth where he merely contended that statements on the website portrayed him in a negative light.
Benson v. City of Marksville
Ct. Appeals 3d Cir., Feb. 6, 2002 (812 So.2d 687)
Although some provisions of the anti-SLAPP statute are procedural and retroactively applicable, the provision in the statute for award of attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party represents a substantive change in the law and is to be applied only prospectively.
Lee v. Pennington
Ct. Appeals 4th Cir., Oct. 16, 2002 (830 So.2d 1037)
The anti-SLAPP statute is not unconstitutionally vague. Although law enforcement officers are exempt, the statute does not violate the Equal Protection clause.
Stern v. Doe
Ct. Appeals 4th Cir., Dec. 27, 2001 (806 So.2d 98)
The special motion to strike applies to a cause of action for "false light" invasion of privacy arising from a television station showing high school students being processed at a truancy center. The standard for granting a special motion to strike is probability of success on the complaint, a legally ambiguous term. Students cannot demonstrate a probability of success since they had no expectation of privacy when being processed at the truancy center. Students did not contend that any portion of the store was inaccurate and the running of the story was reasonable given the city's truancy problem.
Thomas v. City of Monroe Louisiana
Ct. Appeals 2d Cir., Dec. 18, 2002 (833 So.2d 1282)
A television station, operating as a corporation, is a "person" authorized to use the special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. A city employee did not meet the burden of proof requiring him to prove that the television station knew a police report was false.