California appeals court backs reporter who published sealed arrest records

The panel agreed with the trial court that a news reporter who published information about a former tech CEO’s arrest on suspicion of domestic violence was protected by the First Amendment and state anti-SLAPP statute.(CN) — The California Court of Appeal affirmed on Wednesday a judge’s ruling tossing a defamation lawsuit against a news reporter who published information about a former tech CEO’s 2021 arrest on suspicion of domestic violence.The three-judge appellate panel agreed California’s anti-SLAPP statute applies to claims brought by former tech CEO Maury Blackman against journalist Jack Poulson, ruling Poulson’s blog posts about Blackman’s 2021 arrest were protected activity, and the information was of public interest due to Blackman’s role as then president and CEO of Premise Data, which has ties to the government and provides data to the U.S. military.“Poulson published the information at issue in his newsletter, which was dedicated to reporting on the intersection of technology and national security. The newsletter was publicly available on the internet, and Poulson wrote about Premise Data’s work for the government and revealed Blackman’s arrest in his newsletter. We conclude that this speech participated in, or furthered, the discourse that makes an issue one of public interest,” Presiding Justice Tracie L. Brown wrote for the panel.The panel concurred with the lower court that the First Amendment protected Poulson’s conduct because he lawfully obtained the arrest report, which contained truthful information, and did not know the report was sealed when he received it.“The press is responsible for reporting on government operations, including those of the police, and, by publicly releasing the incident report without restriction, the government impliedly determined its dissemination was in the public interest,” Brown wrote. “The government cannot fairly punish a media defendant for relying on that determination.”The appeals court further upheld the lower court’s finding that the Communications Decency Act — which shields online businesses and social media platforms from liability for content posted by users — barred Blackman’s claims against Substack and Tech Inquiry, a public website Poulson founded that tracks technology companies’ ties with the military, as they were “neutral conduits for the content at issue.”The panel also affirmed the lower court’s awarding of attorneys fees to the defendants.Associate Justice Danny Y. Chou and Marin County Superior Court Judge Andrew E. Sweet, sitting by designation, rounded out the panel.Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Poulson revealed Blackman’s arrest, which had been sealed because it did not lead to a conviction, in a 2023 Substack article. The article contained a link to a redacted copy of the incident report, which Poulson says was confidentially leaked to him and hadn’t been marked with a note that it was sealed, as the law requires.Blackman sued Poulson, Substack and Tech Inquiry using a John Doe pseudonym in San Francisco Superior Court in December 2024, asserting 14 claims, including negligence, public disclosure of private facts, defamation and violations of California Penal Code.California’s anti-SLAPP statute, short for strategic lawsuit against public participation, allows a defendant to seek quick dismissal of a lawsuit they believe is only aimed at stifling their First Amendment free speech rights. The law, which also entitles a successful defendant to recover legal fees, can save a target from spending a fortune to fight meritless lawsuits by deep-pocketed plaintiffs.In February 2025, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Christine Van Aken granted the defendants’ motion to strike under California anti-SLAPP statute. The judge ruled the First Amendment protected Poulson’s conduct, while the Communications Decency Act shielded Substack and Tech Inquiry.Free speech advocates filed a separate lawsuit on behalf of Poulson in November 2024 against Attorney General Rob Bonta and San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, claiming they used a section of the California penal code to go after journalists who published information related to Blackman’s arrest records, at Blackman’s request.The law ensures information related to sealed arrest records can’t be disseminated, but First Amendment advocates say it also prevents journalists, attorneys and even victims from sharing such records, even if they obtained the information through legal public records requests.The parties reached an agreement in December 2024, allowing people to publicize information obtained through records requests or that is otherwise openly available.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads