A California appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by former Premise Data CEO Maury Blackman against journalist Jack Poulson over reporting about Blackman's 2021 arrest in connection with a domestic-violence incident.
The First District Court of Appeal ruled that Poulson's publication was protected by the First Amendment and affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss the claims under California's anti-SLAPP law.
Blackman was arrested in December 2021, and the records relating to the arrest were later sealed. No charges were ultimately pursued. Poulson, who publishes the All Source Intelligence newsletter, later obtained a copy of a police report from a source and published information from it.
Domestic Violence Arrest Brought Another Legal Fight
For context, Blackman subsequently sued Poulson as well as Substack, Tech Inquiry and Amazon Web Services over the publication and distribution of information connected to the arrest. His claims sought damages and challenged the continued availability of the material online.
The lower court granted anti-SLAPP motions brought by the defendants, effectively ending the case at an early stage. California's anti-SLAPP statute allows defendants to seek dismissal when claims arise from activity protected by free speech or petitioning rights.
Blackman appealed, arguing that the order sealing his arrest records should prevent Poulson from reporting the information. The appeals court rejected that argument and affirmed the lower court's orders.
Blackman wasn’t charged and he was able to get his arrest record sealed, but Poulson obtained a copy of the incident report from an undisclosed source and published the disturbing details of the alleged victim’s version of events.https://t.co/LxZArCGeJo
— Freedom of the Press Foundation (@FreedomofPress) November 22, 2024
The court's reasoning turned on the circumstances in which the information was obtained and published. It held that the First Amendment protects the lawful publication of truthful information concerning matters of public significance unless there is a sufficiently strong state interest to justify restricting that protection.
That does not mean the ruling established a blanket right for journalists to publish sealed arrest records. The decision was tied to the particular facts before the court, including the way Poulson obtained the material and the nature of the information he published.
Blackman was arrested in connection with a domestic-violence incident, but no charges were ultimately pursued. The court was therefore dealing with reporting about an arrest and police records rather than a criminal conviction.
First Amendment Protection Extended to the Journalist
The appeals court also considered California's journalist shield law and concluded that Poulson qualified for its protection under the circumstances of the case. That provided an additional legal basis for rejecting Blackman's claims against the journalist.
The court separately upheld Section 230 protection for Substack and Tech Inquiry on the claims at issue. The law can provide online platforms with immunity from certain claims arising from content supplied by others, although the precise application depends on the claims and conduct involved.
The ruling also affirmed an award of attorney fees following the anti-SLAPP proceedings.
The case had attracted the attention of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represented Poulson and characterised the litigation as a free-speech issue.
EFF welcomed the appellate decision, but descriptions such as 'meritless lawsuit' and claims that the case represented an attempt to silence negative reporting are the organisation's characterisations rather than findings that need to be adopted as fact.
What the court did establish was narrower and more concrete.
It affirmed that Poulson's publication was protected under the First Amendment in the circumstances presented and that the defendants were entitled to the protections recognised by the lower court.
The dispute also shows the legal tension that can arise when information has been sealed after it was originally created. A sealing order may restrict access to official records, but the appeals court's decision focused on whether the First Amendment protected the subsequent publication of information that had been lawfully obtained and truthfully reported.
For Blackman, the 29 September 2026 ruling leaves the lower court's dismissal in place. For Poulson, it means the claims arising from his reporting will not proceed following the appellate court's decision.
