The California Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Maury Blackman, former CEO of Premise Data, against journalist and publisher Jack Poulson after he published a report concerning Blackman’s confidential arrest on criminal domestic violence charges. The ruling strengthens protection for journalistic publication of truthful information obtained lawfully, while also limiting the use of lawsuits to pressure journalists and digital platforms.
Poulson, publisher of the All Source Intelligence newsletter, had published details based on an arrest report issued by the San Francisco Police Department and made a copy of the report available after obtaining it from a confidential source. He later learned that the arrest record had been sealed by court order. Blackman filed a damages lawsuit against Poulson, Substack, AWS, and another organization, effectively seeking to have the published material removed from the internet.
Protection for Publication Despite the Sealing of the Arrest Record
The trial court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety under California’s anti-SLAPP law, known as the law against lawsuits aimed at silencing participation in public affairs. This framework targets lawsuits whose primary purpose is not to resolve a substantive dispute, but rather to impose costs, time, and legal pressure on the targeted party that may induce it to stop publishing.
Blackman argued on appeal that the order sealing the arrest record should override Poulson’s right to publish the news. But the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, ruling that the First Amendment protects the publication of truthful information obtained lawfully unless there is an extremely compelling need to achieve an overriding government interest. The court concluded that the privacy interests invoked by Blackman did not meet this standard.
What Does the Ruling Mean for Journalists and Platforms?
The court also found that Poulson, as publisher of the All Source Intelligence newsletter, benefits from California’s journalist shield law, relying on precedent established by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 2006. This indicates that the protection is not necessarily limited to journalists working for traditional media organizations.
As for Substack and the other website that temporarily hosted a copy of the arrest record, the court confirmed that both enjoy immunity from liability under Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Act. Thus, the court not only protected the original publication process, but also preserved the legal barriers that limit holding hosting services liable for user content in such circumstances.
certi.news analysis: The actual change here is not a general recognition of a right to publish any sealed record, but rather the confirmation of specific protection for publishing truthful information obtained lawfully, together with the application of the anti-SLAPP law at an early stage of litigation. The ruling also makes clear that the later sealing of a record does not automatically resolve the constitutional issue concerning the publication of information previously obtained and published. Nevertheless, the scope of the decision remains tied to the facts of the case and to U.S. and California law, and it does not establish a universal rule for handling sealed court records or platform liability.