Some First Amendment lawyers see the case differently. They consider the lawsuit an example of the latest incarnation of a decades-old legal maneuver known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or Slapp.

The label has traditionally referred to meritless defamation suits filed by businesses or government officials against citizens who speak out against them. The plaintiffs are not necessarily expecting to succeed — most do not — but rather to intimidate critics who are inclined to back down when faced with the prospect of a long, expensive court battle.

“I didn’t do anything wrong,” said Mr. Kurtz, who recently finished his junior year at Western Michigan University. “The only thing I posted is what happened to me.”

Many states have anti-Slapp laws, and Congress is considering legislation to make it harder to file such a suit. The bill, sponsored by Representatives Steve Cohen of Tennessee and Charlie Gonzalez of Texas, both Democrats, would create a federal anti-Slapp law, modeled largely on California’s statute…

The Newburgh Advocate was started to raise awareness of a SLAPP suit to silence critics of work on the 96 Broadway property.  More on 96 Broadway from the Newburgh Advocate here, here, here, and here, and from the THR here, here, here, and here.

Here is a direct link to the highlights video.

This is the complete documentation of the 96 Broadway discussion yesterday evening, unedited, in three parts (approximately thirty minutes total):

Update: Video available upon request.

Here is a closer look at 96 Broadway as it appeared during the winter of 2003:

And a detail of the cornice:

To quote Edmund Burke:

All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.

To help increase awareness and facilitate actions of good conscience, please make use of the links below.

Click here to download a copy of the Complaint filed against Michael Gabor and John and Jane Does numbered 1 through 50.

Click here to view the Electronic Freedom Foundation’s page on Bloggers’ Rights.

Click here to read a news article about Apple losing its case against bloggers.

Click here to read about a case in Delaware that protects anonymous blogger’s freedom of speech.

Click here to read the First Amendment Center’s overview on blogging.

STRATEGIC LAWSUITS AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

Click here for the Anti-SLAPP Resource Center.

Click here for New York State’s code relating to this:

CIVIL RIGHTS LAW
ARTICLE 7. MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND IMMUNITIES

NY CLS Civ R § 70-a (2004)

§ 70-a. Actions involving public petition and participation; recovery of damages

Click here for the Center for Media and Democracy’s article “SLAPP Happy: Corporations That Sue To Shut You Up.”

*****

Click here to view the MidHudson Times article about the controversy

June 14, 2006

Newburgh: a city on the scenic West Bank of the Hudson River, located in the state of New York, in the United States of America.

The United States of America has a wonderful Constitution, that includes the First Amendment, to quote:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unfortunately there has been an attempt to stifle the precious freedom of speech in this City. A complaint has been filed by a Douglas Dollinger, Esq., and 96 Broadway LLC, against Michael Gabor, a City of Newburgh resident, and John and Jane Does numbered 1 through 50 as co-defendants.

Click here to see the original Times-Herald Record article that provoked the complaint.

Click here to read a more recent Times-Herald Record article about the lawsuit.

Click here to read Michael Gabor’s Letter to the Editor regarding this complaint.

The Newburgh Advocate has published the following videos to increase public awareness of this situation.

Click here to see excerpts of the City Council meeting of June 12, 2006, and the Architectural Review Commission meeting of June 13, 2006.

Click here to see a higher resolution version of the City Council meeting excerpts of June 12, 2006, where you may also download the video file.