Internet Speech Victory in “Kaufman vs. Islamic Society of Arlington County, Texas”

By • on June 28, 2009

From Atlas Shrugs:

Blow to Islamic supremacism: Texas Islamic Groups argued that Internet speech should be less protected than print, radio, or television speech. They lost.

Congratulations to the attorneys on the case for Plaintiff Joe Kaufman (who won), who were:

Brandon Bolling, Thomas More Law Center, Ann Arbor, MI
Thomas Brandon, Whitaker Chalk, Ft. Worth, TX
William J. Becker, Jr., The Becker Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA
Manuel Klausner, Los Angeles, CA, Individual Rights Foundation

Good news: In a 36-page opinion in Kaufman v. Islamic Society of Arlington County, Texas, et al., signed by Justice Terrie Livingston for a 3-judge panel, dated June 25, 2009, the Texas Court of Appeals (Second District, Fort Worth) ruled as follows:

1. Found that “an [I]nternet communicator may qualify as a member of the media” and denied the motion of the seven plaintiff/appellee Muslim organizations to dismiss Kaufman’s interlocutory appeal before trial.  In a significant ruling that may have impact beyond Texas, the court expressly rejected the contention that Kaufman is not a “media defendant” under the Texas statute that “gives procedural protection to “electronic or print media” defendants.  The court found that (a) Kaufman’s journalistic experience, (b) his” extensive notoriety” through his TV appearances, (c) his substantial readership, (d) “the inherent public interest in the terrorism issues he reports,” and (e) his publishing his article online in Front Page Magazine, an Internet publication with “broad readership and its existence as a news/commentary medium that is independent from Kaufman’s article,” entitled him to the statutory protection to seek dismissal of an unmeritorious libel claim before “the time-consuming and expensive trial phase”); and
2. Found the trial court erred in denying Kaufman’s motion for summary judgment contending that the Muslim organizations’ defamation claims were barred as a matter of law because Kaufman’s article and his graphic were not specifically directed towards the seven Muslim organizations — and therefore did not “concern” them as required under Texas defamation law — and reversed the trial court’s order denying Kaufman’s motion for summary judgment; and

3. Rendered judgment in Kaufman’s favor.

The opinion is set forth at the court’s website here.
UCLA law professor, Eugene Volokh, a prominent first amendment scholar, posted the following item on Volokh.com concerning the court’s opinion:
Texas Islamic Groups Argue That Internet Speech Should Be Less Protected Than Print, Radio, or Television Speech:

The Texas Court of Appeals disagrees, holding that a Texas statute that gives procedural protection to “electronic or print media” defendants covers Internet journalists on par with print journalists (and reaffirming that the First Amendment does as well). The case is Kaufman v. Islamic Society of Arlington, Texas; Kaufman is the defendant in the underlying libel action, even though his name is listed first in the appeal — the plaintiffs, who made the argument, were Islamic Society of Arlington, Texas, Islamic Center of Irving, DFW Islamic Educational Center, Inc., Dar Elsalam Islamic Center, Al Hedayah Islamic Center, Islamic Association of Tarrant Count, and Muslim American Society of Dallas.

Here’s the core legal issue: A Texas statute allows pretrial appeals of, among other things, an order that

denies a motion for summary judgment that is based in whole or in part upon a claim against or defense by a member of the electronic or print media, acting in such capacity, or a person whose communication appears in or is published by the electronic or print media, arising under the free speech or free press clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or Article I, Section 8, of the Texas Constitution, or Chapter 73.

Read it all. Hooha!

Related Entries

Recent Entries

Comments

By Pinksalute on June 29th, 2009 at 10:38 am

Good! Thanks to all the attorneys.

Trackbacks