February 11, 2012
 |
 |
Holmgren v. Murrieta OpinionNOTE: The information and commentary contained in this database entry are based on court filings and other informational sources that may contain unproven allegations made by the parties. The truthfulness and accuracy of such information is likely to be in dispute. Information contained in this entry is current as of the last event mentioned in the "Description" section below; additional proceedings might have taken place in this matter since this event.
Posted October 17th, 2008 by CMLP Staff
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Last updated on October 13th, 2010 |
Browse by SubjectDefamation
Anonymity
Copyright
Legal Threat
Access to Gov't Information
Trademark
Third-Party Content
Section 230
User Comments or Submissions
Free Speech
Business Formation
Newsgathering
SLAPP
Criminal
Fair Use
Blogs
False Light
Journalism
CMLP
Consumer Ratings and Reviews
Privacy
Citizen Journalism
Shield Laws
DMCA
Access to Courts
Recently Updated Threat Entries
Navigation |
||
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Technorati
Print Me!
Send via Email
| Copyright 2007-11 Citizen Media Law Project and respective authors. Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License: Details. Use of this site is pursuant to our Terms of Use and Privacy Notice. |
 |
Case Dismissed
The case was voluntarily dismissed after being unable to locate the defendant and having not seen any additional posts that were actionable. It was and remains my position that there is not a First Amendment right to defame another person. Whether or not the speech was defamatory is a matter for the Courts to decide. This is the first case where we sought to limit the speech of another. All of my other First Amendment cases have involved the ability to seek public records, to defend the rights of protestors, and to allow free access for the press and individuals. Thank you for the hard work that you do to keep the First Amendment healthy. While I may not agree with the import of your description of the case, I will defend your right to do so.
Thanks for updating us on
Thanks for updating us on this case. If you have a notice of dismissal or other order that shows the final disposition of the case, please let us know.
WRONG
The attorney in this case has misled the public in his response. Mr. Ackerman had the case dismissed after the plaintiff Roy Holmgren actually committed violence, is now under a restraining order issued in Riverside County CA, had his weapons confiscated, failed to pay child support and was arrested for making violent threats to his Ex via phone calls. Mr Holmgren continues to violate privacy of others.