160 A.3d 539
Me.2017Background
- In 2015 Mainely Media reporters published articles recounting allegations from the early 1990s that Norman Gaudette had sexually abused teenagers and reporting on statements by Terry Davis about a 1991 grand jury proceeding.
- The articles repeated victim accounts and reported Davis’s version that an Assistant Attorney General apologized and claimed he had "thrown the case under the bus."
- Norman and Joanne Gaudette sued Mainely Media, its reporter, and editor for false light, defamation, intrusion, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium.
- Mainely Media moved to dismiss under Maine’s anti‑SLAPP statute, 14 M.R.S. § 556, arguing the articles were petitioning activity protected by the statute.
- The Superior Court denied the anti‑SLAPP motion, finding the law unsettled on whether news reporting is petitioning activity but concluding Gaudette had shown lack of reasonable factual support; Mainely Media appealed.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held the anti‑SLAPP statute does not apply to these news articles because the newspaper was not petitioning on its own behalf or broadcasting its own petitioning activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether publication of newspaper articles constitutes "petitioning activity" under Maine's anti‑SLAPP statute | Gaudette argued the articles are actionable speech and not protected petitioning activity | Mainely Media argued the articles sought to encourage public/government consideration and thus constitute petitioning activity protected by § 556 | Held: No. The anti‑SLAPP statute did not apply because the newspaper was not petitioning on its own behalf nor using the paper to broadcast its own petitioning activity. |
| If petitioning activity, whether Gaudette established the activity lacked reasonable factual support | Gaudette contended the reports were knowingly or recklessly false and unsupported | Mainely Media contended the reporting had reasonable factual support (so anti‑SLAPP dismissal should apply) | Not reached. Court declined to resolve because it found the statute inapplicable to the articles at issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nader v. Me. Democratic Party, 66 A.3d 571 (Me. 2013) (framework for anti‑SLAPP multi‑step analysis)
- Schelling v. Lindell, 942 A.2d 1226 (Me. 2008) (broad interpretation of "petitioning activity")
- Maietta Constr., Inc. v. Wainwright, 847 A.2d 1169 (Me. 2004) (statute applied to letters and statements published in newspapers where they reflected petitioning activity)
- Town of Madawaska v. Cayer, 103 A.3d 547 (Me. 2014) (standard of review and allowance of interlocutory appeal of anti‑SLAPP denial)
- Fustolo v. Hollander, 920 N.E.2d 837 (Mass. 2010) (Mass. court held reporter's news articles were not petitioning on her own behalf under that State's anti‑SLAPP law)
- Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (U.S. 2011) (describes purpose of the right to petition: to seek redress from government)
- Morse Bros. v. Webster, 772 A.2d 842 (Me. 2001) (describing typical mischief anti‑SLAPP legislation intends to remedy)