Talk:Special motion to strike

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Ninth Circuit has held that a special motion to strike, the motion allowed by the anti-SLAPP statute in California, can be used in federal court as well as state court? Source: Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1025 (9th Cir. 2003). ("Because California law recognizes the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute as a substantive immunity from suit, this Court, sitting in diversity, will do so as well.")
  • ALT1:... that government-funded non-profits are not subject to a special motion to strike, and so are exempt from California's anti-SLAPP law? Source: Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 425.17 subd. (d) ("Any nonprofit organization that receives more than 50 percent of its annual revenues from federal, state, or local government grants, awards, programs, or reimbursements for services rendered.")

Created by Amitabho (talk). Self-nominated at 01:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC).

• The article is long enough and new enough. It is written in an encyclopedic style with inline references. There are a few cases of bare URLs being used as references (ref 5, 8, and 23 in the current version); please express them as formatted citations. I think ref 23 should be treated carefully: this is a "newsroom alert" by a law firm, so it is written by a professional expert but it is effectively self-published. I think the text should attribute it as the analysis of one particular firm rather than stating it as fact.

The copyvio detector finds a lot of text common between the article and existing sources, especially in the sections on Commercial speech and Exceptions, where you've reproduced some of the legal code. If we are dealing with legal text that is in the public domain, then it would be okay to reuse it: I don't know if that's the case with California State law as opposed to Federal law, so I welcome clarification on this. In the lead, the phrase "speech made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law" seems to be verbatim from an existing source, maybe itself drawing from the legal code. It needs to be rephrased unless the legal code itself is in the public domain, in which case the source needs to be cited. You've helpfully provided web links for most of the legal documents cited, and I have to assume good faith on the rest: if you provide web links for more of the citations, that's welcome but not mandatory.

I think the original hook is a bit hard to take in with its multiple clauses referring to three different courts, but ALT1 expresses an interesting and digestable fact. This fact is expressed in the article with a suitable inline source. A QPQ seems to be not necessary in this case as the nominator has not made 5 DYK noms. You've done good work creating an accessible overview of a piece of legislation and there are just small changes needed to get this to the required standard (fix citations and clarify the copyright status, or rephrase text where necessary). MartinPoulter (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Having looked up [1] it seems that the legal code on that site is in the public domain, so there isn't a copyright issue, but I ask you to just make sure that every time public domain text is used there is a citation to attribute it: the Commercial speech/ Exemptions sections look okay in this regard, but there is also that "speech made in connection with..." part of the lead which needs citation or rewording. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Amitabho: You've been editing, albeit infrequently, since the above review, but haven't made further edits to the article or responses here. Please could you clarify what you want to happen with this review? It just needs very minor changes to pass and it would be good to get this review completed. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: I think I've handled it. I'm fine with having the alt used instead. CA state law is definitely not copyrighted and cannot constitutionally be copyrighted per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.. Thank you! — Amitabho Chattopadhyay talk 18:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Amitabho: Thanks for getting back to me and for making changes to the article. It's very nearly there. Could you fix the bare URLs that I mentioned in the first para of the review (references 6, 9, and 24 in the current version)? MartinPoulter (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: Done. — Amitabho Chattopadhyay talk 23:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. This is now ready. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)