Greg said, “However, for such legislation to succeed, it must be rooted in transparency and good faith.”
I have also been to target of slap lawsuits up in North Idaho, but this time from people that didn’t like that I was an attorney for NIC, so the lawfare came from the liberal side, although the lawsuit was actually by Michael Gridley, a retired attorney, who publicly stated he wanted to keep us out of the public conversation. After thousands of dollars the entire case against me was dismissed on the merits, and there was some other settlement between other parties of which I have no knowledge.
I protest your quote above, because the merits of the legislation should stand on their own. Nobody complains about legislation from 20 years ago, or even five years ago, based on the perceived politics of the sponsoring legislator. If you don’t like this legislation, you need to show why the policy of it is bad according to its plain language. I suggest you talk to a couple of judges before you opine.
It's presumptive when you assume I did not speak with judges and attorneys before sharing my opinion when, in fact, I've had multiple conversations about this with many people far more qualified than you. Perhaps you should read this more carefully as you will see that I support anti-SLAPP legislation.
It is presumption on my part, and accede to that, but I didn’t see your critique of the legislation itself, only of Lenney.
I get that you support it, but you didn’t say that you supported it based on what was actually in the bill, it looked like you were simply saying that you didn’t like Brian Lenney. I get it, but that did not address the legislation itself, so what was the point?
Would you always disagree with legislation put forth allegedly for the good of the people of Idaho if you didn’t like the legislator?
Greg said, “However, for such legislation to succeed, it must be rooted in transparency and good faith.”
I have also been to target of slap lawsuits up in North Idaho, but this time from people that didn’t like that I was an attorney for NIC, so the lawfare came from the liberal side, although the lawsuit was actually by Michael Gridley, a retired attorney, who publicly stated he wanted to keep us out of the public conversation. After thousands of dollars the entire case against me was dismissed on the merits, and there was some other settlement between other parties of which I have no knowledge.
I protest your quote above, because the merits of the legislation should stand on their own. Nobody complains about legislation from 20 years ago, or even five years ago, based on the perceived politics of the sponsoring legislator. If you don’t like this legislation, you need to show why the policy of it is bad according to its plain language. I suggest you talk to a couple of judges before you opine.
I support the legislation as written.
It's presumptive when you assume I did not speak with judges and attorneys before sharing my opinion when, in fact, I've had multiple conversations about this with many people far more qualified than you. Perhaps you should read this more carefully as you will see that I support anti-SLAPP legislation.
It is presumption on my part, and accede to that, but I didn’t see your critique of the legislation itself, only of Lenney.
I get that you support it, but you didn’t say that you supported it based on what was actually in the bill, it looked like you were simply saying that you didn’t like Brian Lenney. I get it, but that did not address the legislation itself, so what was the point?
Would you always disagree with legislation put forth allegedly for the good of the people of Idaho if you didn’t like the legislator?
I think the point here is that we need better legislators who will work honestly to represent Idahoans.