United States: Blogger-Journalist Protected From Defamation Suit By Anti-Slapp Statute

Last Updated: March 2 2017
Article by David A. Kluft

Are journalists protected by anti-SLAPP statutes?  Until last week, the likely answer would have been: "probably not," at least in Massachusetts.  But that was before Cardno Chemrisk, LLC v. Foytlin, a recent opinion by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (which we Bay Staters refer to as the "SJC"). The case involved a Huffington Post story about a chemical consulting firm involved in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill litigation. The case didn't answer every question a journalist might have about the protection available under the statute, but it was certainly a game changer for anyone who might reasonably be described as an "activist" or "opinion" journalist.  Hey bloggers: you especially ought to quit slouching in your desk chairs and take notice.

What is Anti-SLAPP Protection?

"SLAPP" stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation," often defined as a meritless lawsuit brought in order to deter or punish a citizen for petitioning the government, in other words, for exercising his or her political or legal rights. The stereotypical example involves a citizen speaking out against a nearby housing development at a town zoning meeting, who is then sued by the developer for defamation; the citizen is discouraged from further speech whether or not what she had to say was true.  Anti-SLAPP statutes offer some protection against such suits, usually by providing for expedited dismissal and attorneys' fees. For a more complete discussion of the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP statute's history and parameters, see my Boston Bar Journal article from 2014.

What is Petitioning?

One of the most heavily litigated anti-SLAPP issues is the definition of "petitioning." The Massachusetts statute, Chapter 231, Section 59H of the Massachusetts General Laws, defines petitioning to include not just statements made directly to government bodies, but also those "made in connection with an issue under consideration or review" and those that are "reasonably likely to enlist public participation in an effort to effect such consideration." In the 2014 case of   Town of Hanover v. New England Regional Council of Carpenters, the SJC held that the anti-SLAPP protection extended not only to the citizens who were challenging a controversial expenditure of town funds, but also to a union who was working behind the scenes to provide organizational and legal support to the petitioning citizens.  This means that the law protects not only persons petitioning to protect their own private rights, but also those looking to "advance causes in which they believe."

But does it also extend to the journalists who write about that petitioning activity?  Put another way, can an article about petitioning activity also itself be petitioning activity?  If you read only the SJC's 2010 opinion in Fustolo v. Hollander and nothing else, you'd probably think the answer is "no."

Fustolo v. Hollander: Journalists are not petitioners . . .

Fredda Hollander was a resident of Boston's historic North End, and was actively involved in several nonprofits and advocacy groups that took positions on local zoning issues. She wrote some articles about her advocacy activities and submitted them to the Regional Review, a local newspaper.  The editors of the paper must have liked her style, because they hired her as a paid reporter.  In that capacity, Hollander covered many of the same issues in which she was also personally interested.  However, Hollander swore up and down (and in an affidavit) that, when it came to her reporting, she was trying to be objective and not share her personal views.

Some of Hollander's reporting involved the dealings of local real estate developer Steven Fustolo, as well as the community meetings (i.e., petitioning activity) in which those dealings were discussed. Fustolo, unhappy with the coverage, sued Hollander for defamation.  Hollander filed an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss, claiming that her reporting was related to petitioning activity, and also that it was reasonably likely to enlist further public participation, and therefore should be protected by the statute.

But the SJC disagreed.  Hollander, in her role as a reporter, was not exercising her own petitioning right. As the court stated, her "articles did not contain statements seeking to redress a grievance or to petition for relief of her own." Rather, as a journalist she was trying to objectively report about other people seeking to redress their own grievances (notwithstanding the fact that she privately shared those grievances). Therefore, her articles were not petitioning activity, she was not entitled to bring an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss, and she would have to defend the defamation suit. (You can find a nice tribute to Ms. Hollander, who settled the case in 2010 but then sadly passed away last year, at this link).

Cardno v. Foytlin: . . .except when they are.

Only a few weeks after the SJC's Fustolo opinion came out, a catastrophic explosion occurred at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in a massive oil spill, extensive cleanup efforts and a multi-district federal litigation based in Louisiana.

Cherri Foytlin is a resident of the affected region and full-time environmental activist. She has participated in numerous advocacy activities related to the Deepwater Horizon spill, including meeting with federal agencies and participating in public protests.

In 2013, Foytlin wrote an article (with some contributions from Karen Savage, an eighth grade math teacher residing in Boston) about the effects of the disaster and the cleanup efforts. The article appeared on the Huffington Post's "Green Blog."  Foytlin's byline stated that she was a "Gulf Coast based author and journalist."  The article included a discussion of the ongoing federal litigation, and criticized the ChemRisk company's role as an expert in that proceeding. Among other things, Foytlin wrote that ChemRisk has "a long, and on at least one occasion fraudulent, history of defending big polluters..."  The article closes by asking whether "anyone will ever . . . make [things] right."

In 2014, ChemRisk filed a defamation claim against the authors in Massachusetts.  The defendants countered with an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss, arguing that the defamation claim was based on their petitioning activities.  The lower court judge, relying on the Fustolo opinion, denied the motion, and the defendants appealed.

As in Fustolo, it may very well have been the case that the article was likely to enlist public participation in petitioning activity. And, as in Fustolo, the case turned not on this issue, but on whether the defendants were exercising their own right of petition. Citing Fustolo, ChemRisk asserted that the defendants were merely reporting on the petitioning activity of others, not exercising their own protected rights.  This time, the SJC disagreed, finding that in this case, unlike Fustolo, the authors were exercising their own rights to petition.

Reconciling Fustolo and Foytlin

So, one activist/journalist article in 2010 is not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. Another in 2017 is protected. Both sets of defendants held themselves out as "journalists" in connection with their work. What gives? Is it simply the case that the expanded view of petitioning activity set forth in Town of Hanover has overruled Fustolo? No. According to the SJC, Fustolo is still good law, just distinguishable.

What is the distinguishing feature? Is it money? No. Hollander, the reporter in Fustolo, was paid for her articles, and the defendants in Foytlin were not.  However, the Fustolo opinion expressly rejected compensation as the basis for its holding, and the Foytlin court makes no mention of the issue.

Rather, the distinguishing feature appears to be intent. The reporter in Fustolo had submitted an affidavit attesting to her attempts to be an "objective" journalist.  That objectivity, according to Justice Lenk, "was pivotal to [that] decision in so far as the reporter was not exercising her own constitutional right to petition when authoring the challenged article." Foytlin and Savage, on the other hand, emphasized that they were subjective bloggers. Citing the Merriam Webster dictionary, they argued that a "blog" by definition is a place where "someone writes about personal activities and experiences."  Justice Lenk's opinion does not expressly incorporate this argument, but it does hold that Foytlin and Savage were "speaking for themselves at their own behest" and as a natural extension of Foytlin's extensive activist efforts. Put more simply, because they were "advancing a cause in which they believed," the anti-SLAPP statute protected them.

Bloggers, Pay Attention

Where does that leave bloggers?  First, it's important to recognize that, while the SJC did indicate a willingness to extend Massachusetts anti-SLAPP protection to those who blog their opinions about public issues and petitioning activity (lawsuits, government, etc.), it did not necessarily adopt the defendants' argument that blogging is by definition a subjective petitioning exercise.

Second, it bears noting that in both Fustolo and Foytlin, the SJC was able to avoid making tough calls about the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity, because in both cases there appears to have been undisputed evidence of the authors' intent: Hollander said she was objective, Foytlin said she was not. Easy. What happens when this issue of objectivity is disputed, you ask? Good question.

Until more case law clarifies the landscape, all you bloggers out there who write about petitioning activity (lawsuits, government, etc.) will need to make your best guess about whether anti-SLAPP protection applies based on the presence or absence of indicia of subjectivity. This might include the context in which your articles appear; whether the content expressly calls for further action; how you have characterized your own writing in the past; and whether your writing is related to other more traditional activism in which you have participated.  Whether or not you call yourself a journalist, and whether or not you are paid, does not appear to matter. However, at least some professional journalists may have to choose between jettisoning the veneer of objectivity and giving up protection of the statute. If that doesn't seem fair to you media pros, look at it this way. You're no worse off than you were before last week.

To view Foley Hoag's Trademark and Copyright Law Blog please click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
25 Oct 2017, Webinar, Boston, United States

Foley Hoag will present a 60-minute webinar on Wednesday, October 25 at 12:30 pm EDT, offering guidance for in-house counsel regarding the basics of trademark and design protection in the European Union. Attendees will learn about the opportunities and pitfalls to be on the lookout for when looking to secure, protect, and enforce an IP portfolio overseas.

1 Nov 2017, Webinar, Boston, United States

Please join Foley Hoag on Wednesday, November 1, 2017 for a webinar that covers the details of drafting an appropriate arbitration clause for your company’s commercial contracts.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.