Second law journal article finds fault in SPEECH Act: Trout Point Lodge v. Handshoe

An article in the Journal of International & Comparative Law of the Chicago-Kent College of Law has supported the conclusons of another recent law journal article to find that the SPEECH Act, as aaplied by both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit in Trout Point Lodge v. Handshoe, is overly broad and in sorry need of reform:

the instant case . . . . exposes a potential over inclusivity of the SPEECH Act because of its universal applicability in defamation cases and lack of distinction between illegitimate and legitimate fora. Without the proper ability to distingush between the two types of fora, the SPEECH Act penalizes those plaintiffs filing claims in good faith in appropriate fora.

 The article goes on to speak of a "fundamental failing" of the SPEECH Act, and to state that the Act "should be amended."

Trout Point Lodge was an appelate case of first impression for the 2010 SPEECH Act, which resulted in two American citizens resident in Canada being denied their right to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. An inveterage homophobic blogger, Douglas Handshoe, had targetted Charles Leary and Vaughan Perret for online harassment after his then-web host dropped Handshoe's account for republsihing without permission a copyrighted article that erroneously mentioned Leary & Perret's Nova Scotia business as being involved in a Louisiana corruption scandal.