Real Estate & Property Law

Are Books Media or is There no Freedom of Speech

By Alan Ackerman

The Texas Appeals Court apparently had a lively debate of whether the 'Bulldozed' book was media and thereby protected.
    We have a horrible situation in which a community basically broke itself trying to develop docks at the behest of a big-time Dallas developer.  When the 'Bulldozed' book aptly chronicled the history of eminent domain, the developer uses a 'defamation' claim in order to muzzle Carla Main.
    Is this really America?  Where are our freedoms going?  What is public media?

Publishers Weekly

A Texas Appeals Court yesterday heard a key defamation case that will decide whether books will get the same First Amendment protections as other media, such as newspapers, in the state of Texas. The case revolves around the book Bulldozed: 'Kelo,' Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land by Carla Main (Encounter Books) and a defamation lawsuit filed by Dallas developer H. Walker Royall, who claims the book defames him, and is seeking to ban any further printing or distribution of the book.
Published in 2007, Bulldozed chronicles events in Freeport, Tex., where Royall signed a development agreement that involved the city taking land owned by Western Seafood—a generations-old shrimping business—so a luxury yacht marina could be built. Berliner says this kind of use of 'eminent domain' is very much a public issue, and that that Royall has failed to show any evidence of defamation in the book, as defined by the law, but is instead using the suit to suppress Main's protected free speech. In addition to suing Main and her publisher, Royall has also sued a newspaper that published a review of Bulldozed, (as well as the review's author), and even sued a law professor, Richard Epstein, for writing a jacket blurb. The case against Epstein was dismissed in March. A Dallas trial court, however, denied Main and Encounter's motion for summary judgment in the case last year, and ruled that the lawsuit against them could proceed.
 
'In bringing this lawsuit, Royall seeks to control and punish public discourse about a public-private development project in which he chose to become involved,' reads Main's brief to the appeals court. 'Royall does not dispute the facts, or, indeed, any factual descriptions of things he said or did. Instead, he claims to have been defamed by the way Main characterizes the project and Royall's involvement, the conclusions she draws from disclosed facts, predictions about the future effects of the project, and her political views. The First Amendment fully protects such speech, and Royall's attempt to ban it by way of this libel suit must be rejected.'

Full post as published by National Eminent Domain Blog on October 04, 2010 (boomark / email).