Cape & Islands News

Judge mulls dismissal of blogging defamation case

Attorneys present arguments in Barnstable Superior Court
Lawsuit takes issue with blog posting on Barnstable Harbor dredging

By James Kinsella
The judge in a defamation case involving a Cape Cod Today blogger plans to rule on whether to dismiss the case or allow it to go forward.

After reviewing requested depositions and listening to arguments in Barnstable Superior Court on Thursday afternoon, Judge Robert Rufo said he will take the matter under advisement.

The case involves a blog posted on March 11 in the Robbins Report on Cape Cod Today by Peter Robbins of Centerville, and a subsequent anonymous comment on that blog.

In the blog, Robbins discussed delays in dredging at Barnstable Harbor. He criticized Joseph Dugas of Barnstable and Dugas's attorney, Paul Revere III of Centerville, for the role he said they played in that delay. An anonymous commenter also was critical.

Dugas and Revere subsequently sued Robbins and the anonymous commenter, referred to as John Doe, for defamation.

Peter B. Morin of East Boston, who is representing Robbins, has filed a motion to dismiss the case based on the state's so-called anti-SLAPP statute (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 231, Section 59H.)

"SLAPP" stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation." The term describes the practice of filing lawsuits to muffle people who oppose a particular action, such as developing real estate for sale.

The question at issue is whether the Robbins blog constituted petitioning activity: bringing forward his concerns on a public matter in an attempt to influence the outcome.

If the judge finds that Robbins was engaging in petitioning activity, he can dismiss the case on anti-SLAPP grounds. If not, the case can go forward.

Before the verbal arguments got going Thursday, Judge Rufo refused to accept an amici curiae filing on the case by the Cyberlaw Clinic at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School.

The clinic, acting on behalf of a group of media and online companies and organizations, argued in the filing that the Robbins blog constituted petitioning activity.

Judge Rufo said the clinic had violated a basic judicial rule by making the filing without allowing sufficient time for the opponents to review that filing.

In the subsequent verbal arguments, Morin said that the Robbins blog constituted petitioning activity. He said Robbins has a boat, has long used Barnstable Harbor, and was affected by the delay in dredging.

Morin further said that Robbins was modestly compensated for his blog postings by Cape Cod Today, and that financial recompense wasn't his primary reason for composing the blog.

He further questioned what specific damage Dugas and Morin had incurred through the blog posting. He also questioned whether damage, even if it had occurred, stemmed from the posting, or from a subsequent anonymous e-mail on the controversy, or a circulated letter from Revere to Cape Cod Today publisher Walter Brooks about the blog.

But J. Richard Ratcliffe of Providence, R.I., representing Dugas and Revere, argued that Robbins's own responses in his deposition show that the blogger didn't seek to engage in petitioning activity.

In the deposition, Robbins said he did not seek to influence the outcome of a government proceeding, though if the blog could generate interest result in the harbor being dredged sooner, "that would be wonderful."

Ratcliffe further noted that Robbins did not attend public hearings on the issue, saying he was not getting paid enough to make it worth his while.

The attorney said his plaintiffs didn't object to the general criticism in the blog posting, but rather to particular comments in that blog.

Since the blog was posted, Ratcliffe said, Dugas has noticed a marked difference in how a number of people in Barnstable Village treat him. He said Robbins had sought to take away Dugas's good name, and that such an action was legally actionable.