Civilharassment.com is published by people who see the need to reform the existing civil harassment laws so that due process and equitable justice is more certain.
Judges restrain all sorts of innocent people everyday. With no established statute of limitations, no established discovery, no jury trial, little courtroom time, and very little practical chance of appeal, there is little chance of anything but a guess as to proper Justice. Well respected lawyers, good neighbors, community gadflies, government critics, and grandmothers have all improperly been restrained by Judges for no other reason than to "put a lid" on a problem rather than take the time to actually solve a dispute.
Several California citizens and many attorneys realize reform of the civil harassment laws are long overdue. We are just now organizing ourselves to share information, brainstorm solutions, offer immediate tips to others needing to defend themselves against false and malicious claims, and to draft new legislation, and lobby the legislature for needed reforms.
ALL USE OF WWW.CIVILHARASSMENT.COM IS AT YOUR OWN RISK.
NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE.
All information and services provided by the www.civilharassment.com publication is provided STRICTLY AS-IS. No warranty is made for any quality of the material whatsoever, No representation of accuracy or completeness is made. We guarantee nothing about errors. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and we assume no legal liability for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any documents or data on this site.
We also strive to comply with copyright law yet maintain the right to Fair Use of the property of others. Should you find an error of attribution of use, email us about the problem.
"Even if Hoff was trying to get Moore fired, people are constitutionally entitled to speak the truth about others, even with such a goal. (The tort actually requires either knowledge that such a result is practically certain or a purpose of producing such a result, but I take it that here the allegation is that Hoff wanted Moore to get fired.) The First Amendment constrains the interference with business relations tort, just as it constrains the infliction of emotional distress and other torts. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982); Blatty v. New York Times Co. (Cal. 1986) (speech constitutionally protected against a libel claim is also protected against an interference with business relations claim); Paradise Hills Assocs. (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (same); Delloma v. Consolidated Coal Co. (7th Cir. 1993) (“permitting recovery for tortious interference based on truthful statements would seem to raise significant First Amendment problems”); Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1 v. Moody’s Investor’s Services (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that interference with business relations and interference with contract claims can’t be based on expressions of opinion). The same should apply to the closely related interference with contract tort. See, e.g., Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist.
Perhaps because of this, the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 772(a) provides that, “One who intentionally causes a third person not to perform a contract or not to enter into a prospective contractual relation with another does not interfere improperly with the other’s contractual relation, by giving the third person ... truthful information.” See also, among many other cases, Walnut Street Assocs., Inc. v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc. (Pa. Super. 2009) (so holding); Recio v. Evers (Neb. 2009) (likewise). [UPDATE: Reader CW notes that Minnesota seems to have accepted § 772(a) as well, see Glass Service Co. v. State Farm Ins. Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1995); Fox Sports Net North, LLC v. Minnesota Twins Partnership (8th Cir. 2003).] But even if Minnesota courts take the opposite view as a matter of state law, such a view would be preempted by the First Amendment."
From California Bench Guide for Judges, "The shield law is applicable to publications on an electronic Web site that appears regularly online. Such a Web site falls within the statutory protection of a “newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication,” as a periodic publication. Such Web sites are highly analogous to printed publications: they consist predominantly of text on “pages” that the reader “opens,” reads at his or her own pace, and “closes.” They are also published periodically. O’Grady v Superior Court (2006) 139 CA4th 1423, 1461–1464, 44 CR3d 72."