tech CEO’s Attempt to Silence Reporting on Domestic Violence Arrest Fails in Court
San Francisco, CA – A California court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by tech CEO Maury Blackman against journalist Jack Poulson, Substack, Amazon Web Services, and Tech Inquiry, safeguarding the principles of free speech and the public’s right to data. The case, initially decided on February 5, 2025, by the San Francisco County Superior Court[[2]], centered on Poulson’s reporting of Blackman’s arrest for felony domestic violence.
blackman filed the suit after Poulson, reporting for Tech Inquiry, published an article detailing Blackman’s arrest based on a copy of the police incident report obtained from a confidential source. Blackman sought $25 million in damages and attempted to force the removal of the articles from the internet. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) intervened, urging a California appeals court to uphold the lower court’s decision to strike the lawsuit.
The trial court correctly identified the suit as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) – a tactic used to intimidate and silence critics through legal action. California’s anti-SLAPP statute allows for the swift dismissal of such baseless claims designed to chill free speech. The court persistent that Poulson’s reporting concerned a matter of public interest – specifically, the arrest of a CEO of a surveillance company with U.S. military contracts – and was protected under the First Amendment.
Despite Blackman’s argument that a court order sealing the arrest report superseded Poulson’s right to report the news, the court affirmed established precedent from the Supreme Court and California Court of Appeals, finding that the First Amendment protects the publication of truthful information concerning matters of public interest. The trial court stated that “the First Amendment’s protections for the publication of truthful speech concerning matters of public interest vitiate Blackman’s merits showing.”
tech inquiry was awarded $40,280 in fees consequently of the suit[[1]].
“This case underscores the importance of protecting journalists and their sources,” stated a representative from the EFF. “the public has a right to know about the individuals leading companies that work with the government, and attempts to suppress truthful reporting on matters of public concern will not be tolerated.”
The outcome of the case,as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle[[3]], serves as a strong deterrent against future attempts to weaponize the legal system to silence reporting on newsworthy events.
