Nevada Legislature Header Graphic Home -
NELIS -
Search -
View Scheduled Meetings -
Spacer
Battle Born Flag

78th (2015) Session
Opinions



Reports | View Comments


View all submitted comments for each bill by the most recent, by votes for, or by votes against.


Select any Bill:
or type bill here    Example: AB362
Sort by:
Most Recent Votes For Votes Against
 

 

SB444  
-
Against You are elected to serve the people, not Wynn and his cronies. This bill, as amended, actually harms the electorate at large. May-29-2015
Against please do not let this bill pass. May-28-2015
Against May-28-2015
Against May-28-2015
Against Stop sb444 May-28-2015
Against May-28-2015
Against May-28-2015
Against As though being a rich bastard doesn't already come with enough benefits, now they need to bully people out of criticizing them too? Burn this bill! May-28-2015
Against It's already pretty difficult to stand up to a rich person in Nevada. This bill would make it nearly impossible. May-28-2015
Against May-28-2015
Against May-28-2015
Against May-28-2015
Against Nevada lawmakers voting in favor of this vile bill = fluffers for the rich. Prove me wrong. May-28-2015
Against May-28-2015
Against This bill is unethical. Please vote against it. Thank you! May-28-2015
Against Please vote against this bill. It is against the 1st Amendment. May-28-2015
Against May-28-2015
Against This amendment is for corporations and not for the will of the people. Please don't silence our voices. May-28-2015
Against This State needs to stand for free speech, the Constitution, and Covil Liberties, not special interests May-28-2015
Against May-28-2015
Against May-28-2015
Against Please do not do anything to gut Nevada's anti-SLAPP law. This law is a good thing and essential to protecting free speech. The proposed changes enable people with too much money and time to make life difficult for those without so much money and time, but who want to exercise the first amendment. May-28-2015
Against May-28-2015
Against Efforts to curtail political discourse are despicable. May-28-2015
Against This bill is a slap in the face of the 1st Amendment. Nevada's Senate is trying to gut one of the best Anti-SLAPP statutes in the nation on the behest of special interests. The whole thing is shameful. May-28-2015
Against I don't believe in lawsuits intentionally designed to suppress an individual's right to free speech or to bully someone without the resources to defend themselves against frivolous claims. It isn't fair to use the law to exploit others in this way. May-28-2015
Against May-28-2015
Against Dishonest last-minute changes to what was a terrible bill in the first place. Kill it now! May-27-2015
Against I am strongly against this bill. It will remove the protections in Nevada's currently strong anti-SLAPP law. It will stifle free speech in our great State. The costs for small business owners or individuals to defends themselves against frivolous lawsuits are often prohibitive. This tactical suppression of free speech enables the rich and powerful to stifle the opinions of the poor and less powerful. This is not what the constituents of Nevada want. Thank you. My previous comment/opinion was incorrectly recorded under the original version of the bill before these concerning changes were introduced in the amended version of the bill. May-27-2015
Against I am strongly against this bill. It will remove the protections in Nevada's currently strong anti-SLAPP law. It will stifle free speech in our great State. The costs for small business owners or individuals to defends themselves against frivolous lawsuits are often prohibitive. This tactical suppression of free speech enables the rich and powerful to stifle the opinions of the poor and less powerful. This is not what the constituents of Nevada want. Thank you. May-27-2015
For I will never vote for anyone who supports this. May-27-2015
Against Steve Wynn gets to own a casino in this state. He does not get to toss out our 1st Amendment protections just because he doesn't like what a few people say about him. May-27-2015
Against I'm against the original bill. The amended version was okay, but now that the Senate has rejected it, I am against any and all subsequent versions of the bill that do not guarantee the 1st amendment protections that were reasonably added as amendments. May-27-2015
Against Free speech May-27-2015
Against Nevada currently has THE BEST Freedom of Speech Anti-SLAPP law in the entire country. Please don't let Steve Wynn destroy it! May-21-2015
Against May-13-2015
Against The existing statute provides equitable balance for competing interests. Changes called for in this bill would erode the rights of Nevadans under the 1st ammendment. May-13-2015
Against this bill is a direct assault on the public Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and, as such, as a bad law for the People of Nevada, and anywhere else this type law is proposed. May-13-2015
Against May-12-2015
Against Article 1, Section 9 says: “Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the Jury; and if it shall appear to the Jury that the matter charged as libelous is true and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated.” Truth is a defense, but SB444 deletes a section of the current law that declares immune from litigation a communication “which is truthful or is made without knowledge of its falsehood.” THIS SHOULD not be deleted. May-07-2015
Against This bill is outrageous. May-06-2015
Against I am against this bill as it does not adequately protect free speech in Nevada, and hurts consumers as well as businesses by allowing frivolous lawsuits when an individual expresses an opinion about an area of some general interest, and such opinion is disagreed with by another, even when the opinion is not necessarily libelous or defamatory. The current anti-Slapp law in place works well, and to my knowledge, as a practicing attorney, has not invited an abuse of the system, while protecting individuals' free speech. Leave well enough alone. May-06-2015
Against We should no weaken this important protection to free speech. May-05-2015
Against May-04-2015
Against A bill aimed at stifling free speech when individuals speak out on public issues. May-04-2015
Against May-04-2015
Against Because people should always have the right to speak out against companies/corporations/other people. Just because a company has money doesn't mean it should have the right to cover up wrong-doing and fraud. May-03-2015
Against May-02-2015
Against May-02-2015
Against May-01-2015
Against I wish Pennsylvania had an anti-SLAPP law like Nevada. Why would you want to weaken it? May-01-2015
Against Please VOTE NO on SB444. If this law passes, we may not be able to be as open about our beliefs and fearless of being sued when the opposition has deep pockets. This bill will silence decent, thus infringing on Free Speech/1st Amendment. Free Speech means we can say our piece without retaliation. Free Speech protects spoken thoughts that may be unpopular/unwanted. Those against SB444 include the ACLU and LVRJ Columnist/Reporter John L. Smith and many others. Steve Wynn is sponsoring the Bill. Knowing this, you can see that Wynn doesn't like any individual to speak ill of him. His ego is a mile high. Please protect our our human rights, inherent within the 1st Amendment. Please VOTE NO on SB444. *******Attorneys gone wild! Bill would eviscerate Nevada’s strong anti-SLAPP law https://4thst8.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/attorneys-gone-wild-bill-would-eviscerate-nevadas-strong-anti-slapp-law Apr-30-2015
Against Legislation to uphold freedom of speech and avoid frivolous lawsuits must continue to protect the taxpaying citizens of Nevada. Apr-30-2015
Against Bill "fixes" a "problem" for Steve Wynn. For the vast majority of your constituents, removes needed protection from unjust lawsuits. Apr-29-2015
Against why mess with a really good anti-SLAPP bill??? somebody with deep pockets recently offended??? Apr-28-2015
Against This Bill is a horrible idea - it will weaken Nevada's Anti-SLAPP protections to the extreme detriment of free speech. If a plaintiff has a claim with merit, they can recover under the current law. There is no need to loosen the reasonable and necessary restrictions on plaintiffs. This will only lead to the chilling of speech and will severely undermine the very purpose of Nevada's current anti-SLAPP protections. If this bill passes, you may as well repeal the current law entirely. Apr-28-2015
Against I am completely against any changes to the anti-SLAPP laws in Nevada state. "Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation," is an acronym that speaks for itself and will speak for your actions if you allow SB444 to negatively effect legitimate free speech. SLAPP is aimed at stifling free speech when individuals protest against a government action or whenever people speak out on an issue. Your support of this bill will clearly demonstrate whose interest you actually have in mind. Anti-SLAPP laws are important to protect free speech, because sometimes people sue just to silence their critics. This seems like some people don't enjoy the fact that they might have to pay up for filing bogus lawsuits trying to stop free speech. SLAPP actions are a waste of resources to Nevada's courts and communities. Please do not let SB444 reduce protections against needless litigation. Apr-28-2015
Against Apr-28-2015
Against Apr-27-2015
Against Apr-27-2015
Against Free speech should never be infringed upon. EVER Apr-27-2015
Against Apr-27-2015
Against Apr-27-2015
Against SB444 “drops Nevada from the gold standard to one that makes its protections lower than any other state in the union,” he said in his prepared testimony. “SB444 takes Nevada from first to worst. Free speech needs to be protected. Especially in a state with freedoms like Nevada. Apr-27-2015
Against Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Apr-27-2015
Against I am against this bill. It will weaken Nevada's SLAPP law and encourage lawsuits. Apr-26-2015
Against The law, as currently enacted, is sufficient. The proposed changes will weaken the SLAPP law. Apr-26-2015
Against Apr-26-2015
Against Apr-26-2015
Against Apr-26-2015
Against Free speech is vital. Our government is of the people & for the people. Not of the corporations & for the corporations. Apr-26-2015
Against Apr-26-2015
Against Apr-26-2015
Against This bill seriously undermines Americans' freedom of speech rights. It should not pass. Apr-26-2015
Against Apr-26-2015
Against Apr-26-2015
Against SB444 “drops Nevada from the gold standard to one that makes its protections lower than any other state in the union,” he said in his prepared testimony. “SB444 takes Nevada from first to worst. “ disgraceful you people are even considering this. Corporatist bootlicking is anathema to democracy no matter how much the lobbyist pays. Apr-26-2015
Against Apr-26-2015
Against Apr-26-2015
Against This bill will severely limit freedom of speech in NV, it only serves the wealthy who want to be able to use their money to bully those who choose to speak against them. I am proud that NV has such a strong Anti-SLAPP law, this bill is an embarrassment. Apr-26-2015
Against Another example of the well off using government to silence critics. Another solution seeking a problem. Apr-25-2015
Against Freedom of speech should not be allowed on a circumstantial basis. Apr-25-2015
For Apr-25-2015
Against Apr-25-2015
Against Isn't it nice that a billionnaire gets to buy his way out and allow him to bully anyone who criticizes him? Hooray for destroying the 1st amendment Nevada. DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN. Apr-25-2015
Against Bad to the bone. Kill it in assembly Apr-25-2015
Against Who is Brower working for? Apr-25-2015
Against Apr-25-2015
Against It is appalling that this bill is even under consideration, given that it essentially allows the rich and powerful to restrict speech criticizing them. It is hard to think of anything more unamerican! Apr-24-2015
Against SB444 is an anti-anti-SLAPP bill. It weakens the existing Statute. The need for this bill has not been demonstrated. Apr-24-2015
Against Free speech is to precious to treat lightly. Apr-24-2015
Against Apr-24-2015
Against I will never vote again for anyone who supports this. Apr-24-2015
Against Ridiculous! Limits free speech!!!! Apr-24-2015
Against Apr-24-2015
Against Apr-24-2015
Against ?“I oppose this bill because it will reduce the protections for speech that the anti-SLAPP law passed in 2013 provided all of us Nevadans. I write a hobbyist blog, and on it, I often express my opinion about the products of major companies that make products for the hobby. With this bill and its language restricting protection to only speech about issues that are ‘concerns not only the speaker and the speaker’s audience, but the general public.’ That means, under the bill, if I say truthful things about a product I receive on my blog, that company can sue me and be confident that I won’t have the benefit of Nevada’s anti-SLAPP, since it would only be an issue that concerns me and the kind of people that would be interested in my blog, and not the general public. That’s not good for me, for free expression, or for Nevada.” ¦?“This bill substantially weakens the anti-SLAPP protections that were established to protect individuals who voice their opinions. Consumers need and want such protections in order that they not be subjected to frivolous litigation by individuals and companies who have more money than them and seek to shut them up via expensive litigation.” Apr-24-2015
Against Apr-24-2015
Against Apr-24-2015
Against Apr-24-2015
Against This is wrong in so many ways. The people have the right to have there voices heard by our freedom of speech placed here by our forefathers. Apr-24-2015
Against Apr-24-2015
Against Free speech is protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. As an future Nevada resident, this bill would be a disgrace to the first amendment and free speech everywhere. Apr-24-2015
Against Apr-24-2015
Against Apr-24-2015
Against Apr-24-2015
Against This bill suppresses free speech and gives more power to the elite. This serves the purposes of the businesses and should not be signed as it is not representative of the will of the people you were elected by. Apr-24-2015
Against All of our politicians have gone Rogue in Nevada. They are trying to rob County, City and State reserves without the citizens being informed. They are all afraid that one day someone will write the truth of what is really going on in our State. Apr-24-2015
Against Stop this pandering to the elites in this state. This bill is ridiculous. It's funny how our elected officials only need those of us in the non-elite when they need our votes. After they win, it's all about the rich boys and girls. Apr-24-2015
Against Apr-24-2015
Against Apr-24-2015
Against SLAPP suits are used to silence critics by loading them with large legal fees. Please do not allow them back in Nevada. Apr-24-2015
Against Apr-24-2015
Against If this state has any interest in protecting consumers - particularly those who are vulnerable - it should resoundingly vote against this legislation. Apr-24-2015
Against As a writer I don't want to end up bankrupt from legal fees if I have to defend myself against a frivolous lawsuit. A SLAPP suit is one that a Plaintiff files against someone, knowing they won’t win, but they don’t care. The point of it is to punish you with attorneys’ fees, and to scare anyone else who might speak in a way that you don’t like. Unfortunately there are always unethical attorneys that will file these suits in order to make a buck. Anti-SLAPP statutes are a good form of tort reform. They kill off frivolous claims that would otherwise chill free speech. They are a pretty amazing species of law, because they are pro-consumer *and* pro-business. Senate Bill 444 creates a Rube Goldberg mechanism for bringing an Anti-SLAPP motion — which will clearly increase the cost of litigation. It narrows the definition of “issue of public concern” – so consumer reviews, social commentary, and other forms of important public speech are now outside of its protection. It weakens the attorneys’ fees provisions of the existing law. It repeals important provisions that seek to deter plaintiffs from filing anti-SLAPP suits in the first place. It virtually ensures that you can’t ever bring an Anti-SLAPP motion in federal court. Please think hard about voting AGAINST this bill. If you still decide to put a knife in the gut of free speech and business development in Nevada, then you don’t belong in Carson City. Apr-24-2015
Against Destroying Anti-SLAPP laws will tie up our court systems and harm many businesses. Please do not sign this bill! Apr-24-2015
Against TOTALLY OPPOSE SB444! And, I fully concur with this opposition quote from Thomas Mitchell who said this week: "Marc Randazza, who helped draft the 2013 anti-SLAPP update, calls SB444 "a paragon of sleaze. It starts off with preamble statements that make it seem like it is there to protect freedom of expression, but once you read it, you realize that whoever drafted this must have done so with the clear intent of destroying the Anti-SLAPP law." I see that not one single word of support for SB444 has been posted by anyone, but hundreds of words and dozens of obviously highly educated people have thoroughly trashed this obviously bad piece of legislation. The Assembly Judiciary Committee has better judgement and far better things to do than waste your time on such a bad bill. I urge you to kill it as soon as possible. Apr-24-2015
Against Apr-23-2015
Against Apr-23-2015
Against Apr-23-2015
Against I don't see how two years after passing the Anti-SLAPP, why we would now want to repeal this law. This bill takes away the protection for those who are willing to speak the truth and uncover controversy. This bill doesn't encourage free speech, it makes free speech only available to the rich. It allows rich bullies to punish those who speak out against them with frivolous lawsuits. This is not the kind of state I want to live in. It's not the kind of state I can afford to live in. If Nevada wants to encourage companies to move into the state, it needs to give them protection from frivolous lawsuits. This bill takes away any protection they would receive and will discourage them from coming here. Apr-23-2015
Against Apr-23-2015
Against This bill is deceptive. We can have a debate about whether anti-SLAPP provisions are good or bad, but if the person who creates the bill isn't truthful about it, it needs to be sent back to committee for a fuller debate. Thank you for your attention. Apr-23-2015
Against Apr-23-2015
Against I am emphatically against any reduction in the anti-SLAPP protections in Nevada law. SLAPP actions harm the cause of free speech and are a drain on the resources of the courts and the community. SLAPP actions also chill legitimate free speech. Anti-SLAPP protections do not prevent legitimate claims from proceeding, but do allow the courts to efficiently weed out claims which have no real chance of success. Please do not let SB444 reduce protections against needless over-litigation. Apr-23-2015
Against The language of this bill is less than transparent: it would lead one to believe that it would add to the few ways free speech is protected against frivolous lawsuits. Not so. It will significantly undermine one of the few workable protections against such frivolous and censorious abuses of the judicial system. (See: http://popehat.com/2015/04/17/why-are-nevada-state-senators-trying-to-eviscerate-the-states-anti-slapp-statute/.) The current law protects speech by requiring plaintiffs to pony up an adequate showing that their lawsuit has some merit. Legitimate complaints aren't deterred. Yes, the statute could use some revisions *if* the courts applying it identify flaws or inequitable outcomes actually result from its application. Neither of those scenarios has arisen. Why fix what isn't broken? Apr-23-2015
Against Apr-23-2015
Against Apr-23-2015
Against Apr-23-2015
Against This bill would weaken free speech in Nevada by eviscerating our current excellent anti-SLAPP law. I urge you to vote no on this bill. Apr-23-2015
Against Just because you have a ton of money doesn't mean you should always Wynn. (See what I did there?) Apr-23-2015
Against Apr-23-2015
Against Apr-23-2015
Against Apr-23-2015
Against Apr-23-2015
Against Apr-23-2015
Against stop the frivolous lawsuits Apr-23-2015
Against Apr-23-2015
Against As Shakespeare wrote in "Henry VI," "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." It seems to me that this is a classic example of something's not being broken so why are the legislators trying to "fix" it? Does the "follow the money" statement from "All the President's Men" seem too cynical? Not to me. Apr-23-2015
Against It's not right to let one man with a lot of money lobby to change an excellent law. An excellent law that makes Nevada particularly appealing for businesses because they know people will be reluctant to bring frivolous lawsuits against them and that helps protect the little guy from being sued into bankruptcy by a rich guy with a grudge. Apr-23-2015
Against Save US from the grasping lawfare industry, the free speech silencers such as CAIR, and the simply avaricious professional law suit extortionists. Apr-23-2015
Against Anti-SLAPP statutes are a good form of tort reform. They kill off frivolous claims that would otherwise chill free speech. They are a pretty amazing species of law, because they are pro-consumer *and* pro-business. Apr-23-2015
Against Anti-SLAPP laws are very useful for protecting free speech, and should not be destroyed because someone wealthy and powerful lost a lawsuit and wants to keep it from happening again. America was founded for ALL people, not just those who happen to have the money and power to lobby for change. Apr-23-2015
Against FREE SPEECH SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SUPPRESSED BY THE WEALTHY! Apr-23-2015
Against If anything, anti-SLAPP laws should be stronger, not weaker. The ability to financially ruin someone stating an opinion should be as difficult as possible. Apr-23-2015
Against The changes proposed for the anti-SLAPP statute would eviscerate the protections it provides. This is not a matter of protecting defamatory speech; it is a protection for those who speak their minds in a truthful manner, and who face lawsuits that are filed purely for the purpose of silencing their speech. Apr-22-2015
Against Apr-22-2015
Against Apr-22-2015
Against Apr-22-2015
Against I oppose this bill because it will reduce the protections for speech that the anti-SLAPP law passed in 2013 provided all of us Nevadans. I write a hobbyist blog, and on it, I often express my opinion about the products of major companies that make products for the hobby. With this bill and it’s language restricting protection to only speech about issues that are "concerns not only the speaker and the speaker’s audience, but the general public.” That means, under the bill, if I say truthful things about a product I receive on my blog, that company can sue me and be confident that I wont have the benefit of Nevada’s anti-SLAPP, since it would only be an issue that concerns me and the kind of people that would be interested in my blog, and not the general public. That’s not good for me, for free expression, or for Nevada. Apr-22-2015
Against Apr-22-2015
Against Apr-22-2015
Against This bill substantially weakens the anti-SLAPP protections that were established to protect individuals who voice their opinions. Consumers need and want such protections in order that they not be subjected to frivolous litigation by individuals and companies who have more money than them and seek to shut them up via expensive litigation. I was a defendant in a SLAPP suit in California, and such legislation was necessary to protect me from potential financial ruin. The case against me was frivolous, but without the anti-SLAPP protections, the cost of legal fees would have been much, much greater. This bill is sought by a billionaire who prefers defendants not be protected against his frivolous litigation. Please leave the anti-SLAPP law intact, as is. The legislation currently being considered would make Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law completely worthless to your constituents. Apr-22-2015
Against I understand that this broken State doesn't have much other options than to bend over backwards for the casino overlords, but it would be nice to see it actually care about the people that actually live here. I know, I know, people don't send over much tax revenue over to Carson City. Protect the people's voice, or the right of revenue-generating corporations right to bully opposition into silence? This State will never become relevant as long as it sells out it's population like cheap labour. Apr-22-2015
Against There is no good reason to gut Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute. This law was designed to protect our Constitutional rights, and SB444 is trying to roll back those provisions. Apr-22-2015
Against Apr-22-2015
Against Apr-22-2015
Against The anti-SLAPP statutes we now have are some of the best in the country, which allows the citizenry the freedom of their first amendment rights. To weaken the existing statute, would weaken the individuals rights to be able to express themselves as is their constitutional right, without having to worry that they will get sued over their personal opinion. Apr-22-2015
Against Apr-22-2015
Against Apr-22-2015
Against This bill is a radical departure from free speech, and forward, progressive thinking and progress. this bill represents a commitment to return to the stone age, and will damage both private citizens and businesses. Apr-22-2015
Against Let's please keep the frivolous lawsuits down and protect the 1st Amendment in this State. Apr-22-2015
Against As the victim of multiple SLAPP suits filed by my municipal government, I find this bill totally unacceptable. It appears that this bill would severely restrict the ability of a victim of a SLAPP suit to seek redress and it also appears that some of these provisions would be retroactive, which means I personally would be injured by this bill. Vote NO. Apr-22-2015
Against This bill guts Nevada's anti-Slapp protections, hurts consumers, stifles free speech and scares off businesses from locating here. It protects Steve Wynn's interests and little else. Apr-22-2015
Against Apr-22-2015
Against I would like to have faith in this country again, faith that the People have value because we are in fact, the UNITED States of America, are we not? We cannot be united if we are pinned to the wall with our free speech which may or may not be used against us. We must know. The very foundation of America is free speech. How does this bill benefit our founding fathers’ vision? Our pledge of allegiance? Our patriotic spirit? Our devotion to the state, the governement, the country? By voting against this bill, you have an opportunity to make a positive and ethically correct difference. This virtue money cannot buy. Apr-22-2015
Against this bill will have a chilling effect on free speech; Apr-21-2015
Against This bill eviscerates Nevada's existing anti-SLAPP bill. It would chill speech (product reviews, complaints, & comments) by allow retaliatory and baseless defamation suits against the person speaking. The proposed law puts media providers and tech companies at risk as well for baseless contributory defamation claims, discouraging them from locating their businesses in Nevada. It's being brought by a California lawyer who's ethically questionable defamation actions against Nevada citizens have successfully been dismissed by Nevada's current law. Not only does he hope to destroy Nevada's model anti-SLAPP law, his proposal would prevent Nevada citizens from continuing to have the Nevada law applied in Federal court and in other states. On every level this bill is bad for Nevada. It protects the unethical and the powerful at the expense of Nevadans. Apr-21-2015
Against Nevada's Anti-SLAPP law is a bullwalk against improper restrictions on free speech. This is a cornerstone of our democracy and must be protected against improper restrictions. Litigation is a powerful tool and must be protected, but as with any other powerful tool it should be subject to some safety restrictions. In this case, Nevada's current Anti SLAPP law provides substantial protections against improper uses of lawsuits to silence critics or chill free speech. Apr-21-2015
Against Apr-21-2015
Against Please do not gut Nevada's Anti-Slapp Act. The legislation, as is, protects important free speech rights and assists individuals in asserting other rights. Revising the legislation would allow powerful special interest groups, and corporations to silent critics . Please vote against SB444. Apr-21-2015
Against Nevada's anti-SLAPP statutes are an important protection of free speech within this state. I don't believe we should be doing anything to reduce the protections afforded to individuals wishing to express themselves without fear of reprisal. Apr-21-2015
Against Apr-21-2015
Against Apr-21-2015
Against "When Nevada passed its best-in-the-nation Anti-SLAPP law in 2013, that made Nevada really attractive to tech companies and media companies." source: https://randazza.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/nevada-anti-slapp-law-under-attack/ Now why on earth are we trying to screw up something we did right in 2013! Apr-21-2015
Against The legislature should not be the pawn of someone just because they are rich. The government's role is to protect the weak, not to kowtow to the powerful. Apr-21-2015
Against This bill would weaken our constitutional protections. Apr-21-2015
Against There is no reason for this Bill to pass. It is an obvious attempt to remove most of the benefits of the Anti-SLAPP legislation. Passage would be a despicable act by the legislature as they attempt to protect certain special interests from free speech of the citizenry. Apr-21-2015
Against I have been a Nevada attorney for almost twenty years and I am in strong opposition to this bill, which wrongfully guts Nevada's strong Anti-SLAAP law and will greatly chill free speech and enable frivolous litigation in Nevada. I strongly urge the members of our Legislature to vote "no" on this bill and preserve our Anti-SLAAP Law. Apr-21-2015
Against Please do not support this bill. Nevada has some of the best Anti-Slapp laws in the nation and this will weaken them. It hurts the freedom of speech when people with lots of money can basically sue whomever they want with impunity. This bill is not necessary. Apr-21-2015
Against Nevada's current Anti-SLAPP law is vital to protecting freedom of speech in Nevada and preventing frivolous lawsuits. How can lawmakers concerned about frivolous lawsuits support this? Apr-21-2015
Against Apr-21-2015
Against I am strongly opposed to SB 444. Please vote against this bill. Apr-21-2015
Against Apr-21-2015
Against Apr-21-2015
Against Anti-SLAPP bills are vital for the protection of free speech and also to help stop abuses of the court systems. The original bill does not need revision and certainly does not need to be weakened. Apr-21-2015
Against I am against weakening Nevada's Anti-SLAPP statute. I believe that weakening this statute would lead to more frivolous lawsuits and would prevent people from exercising their freedom of speech. It would also make people think twice about testifying in court, reporting illegal actions to government officials, and many other types of speech that we should protect, all because people are afraid of getting sued. Apr-21-2015
Against Apr-21-2015
Against This will hurt small businesses and is bad for everyone except large, wealthy, companies. Apr-21-2015
Against In no way is it a free market if companies can legally gag order customers from voicing their experiences online, or otherwise. We MUST keep free speech protected. If one does not wish for negative feedback from customers, one should either do better, or not be in business. Apr-21-2015
Against Apr-21-2015
Against Apr-21-2015
Against Creating loopholes and reducing power on something that actually helps everyone (not just millionaires) is quite the stupid thing to do. Do not cave in, because reducing the power on the anti-SLAPP law will affect everyone. Imagine any legislator criticizing a business out of frustration just to be sued for clearly a statement of opinion? would you like that? of course not, keep the law as it is. Apr-21-2015
Against Many aspects of this bill are unreasonable. Please keep the anti-SLAPP as they are. Apr-20-2015
Against I am an ardent supporter of a person's first amendment rights. This law would help to chill free speech by eroding the previous anti-slapp bill enacted a couple of years ago. A person should have the right to defend themselves adequately against a defamation suit, without having the burden of being dragged thru the process as a means to quiet them, which is the whole purpose of having solid anti-slapp laws on the books. Apr-20-2015
Against As an Attorney I see first hand the decision making that clients have to go through when deciding how to handle a suit and money is a big component. To diminish the deterrent represented by the current statute is to put the power back squarely in the hands of those with the deepest pocketbooks. Bullying should not be something that is furthered by the justice system. In England, for example, the loser bears the winner's attorney's fees and it acts as a major deterrent to filing suit at all. On the other end of the spectrum we have the American system where both sides often end up bearing their own fees. Somewhere in the middle we have the statute here before SB444. Allowing legitimate claims while being a deterrent against burying the other side in litigation for the sole purpose of drowning out their voice. Apr-20-2015
Against Horrific give away to litigious political operatives and an impediment to free speech! Vote against this anti-citizen piece of crap! Apr-20-2015
Against This bill guts the existing useful SLAPP statute and is an abomination to the concept of free speech. Apr-20-2015
Against Please do not pass this legislation. I would like the original law to remain unchanged. Apr-20-2015
Against Apr-20-2015
Against I was threatened with a lawsuit by a company that had claimed to have done work in my home that they didn't. I contacted the Better business bureau only to have them tell me I had to provide a receipt as proof I had work done (with my address on it) I gave it to them.. They gave it to the company who proceeded to threaten lawsuits if I continued to spread their bad service. Apr-20-2015
Against I agree with the points made above. This legislation is horrendous. In addition, it makes the politicians that have voted for it so far seem corrupt. Apr-20-2015
Against Apr-20-2015
Against Apr-20-2015
Against This is a TERRIBLE piece of legislation that would take Nevada backwards. In the name of free speech and public participation, this legislation should die and never rise again. I urge you to do what is right for ALL OF NEVADA instead of being at the beck and call of Steve Wynn. A spine is a terrible thing to waste. Apr-20-2015
Against This bill with KILL our free- speech rights. We live in a digital age with so much social media. Passing this bill will create SO MANY frivolous law suites and waste so much time and energy for what? Someone who got their panties in a wad because someone on the internet defamed them with one negative comment? This bill has unrealistic expectations and is a direct infringement on our rights as American citizens. You cannot control what people say and how they say it- that's just one step closer to socialism. Not to mention- unanimous vote? How did that happen? I don't care how much money you have or who you are. That does not give you the right to buy people off and have them vote certain way. That is grossly dishonest and corrupt (Mr. Wynn). Do what is right for the people of America. Apr-20-2015
Against Apr-20-2015
Against Repealing the anti-SLAPP by hiding it in legislation. Government payoff at its finest Mr. Wynn. Apr-20-2015
Against Currently, Nevada has one of the best anti-SLAPP laws in the country. NRS 41.635-41.670 protect Nevada's citizens from unreasonable lawsuits designed to silence opposing opinions by strongly penalizing vexatious plaintiffs that act in bad faith. SB444 removes those penalties by repealing NRS 41.670, reducing the motion to dismiss deadline from 60 days to 20 days, and lowering the burden of proof for vexatious plaintiffs. Apr-20-2015
Against Nevada's existing anti-SLAAP statute is strong, and rightfully so. What has happened in the past two years that necessitates this massive policy changed? This bill is the wrong move for the future of Nevada businesses and its citizens. Apr-19-2015
Against I am a California lawyer and author who intends to move to Nevada after traveling abroad. One draw of Nevada is its strong free speech protections. As someone who makes his living writing, a lawsuit (even a frivolous one) could be a financial disaster. I could not afford to move to Nevada unless there's anti-SLAPP protection. I also have provided pro bono representation to small businesses and individuals who have been threatened with lawsuits in California. California's anti-SLAPP provisions stop frivolous lawsuits before they can happen. I have been able to serve members of the public for low or no cost as I know simply reminding the person making legal threats of our anti-SLAPP law (especially the attorneys' fee provision) is sufficient. If you respect free speech, then SB 444 simply cannot pass, as it will chill speech immediately. It will also influence the decision of others to move to Nevada. I cannot as a writer live in a state without an anti-SLAPP suit. Thank you for your time and for your respect of the free speech rights of your current and future constituents. Apr-19-2015
Against Apr-19-2015
Against This is a stupid bill, if it passes I'll sue you! No, I'm just kidding, I'm not a corporation trying to weaken anti-SLAPP laws so that I can threaten critics into silence with costly SLAPP actions. Apr-19-2015
Against This bill will severely neuter Nevada's strong anti-SLAPP provisions, hamper the free flow of ideas, and make it easier and less costly for irascible autocrats to use the blunt power of our government, via our courts, to silence criticism. These changes do very little, if anything, to protect legitimate claims, and come at the huge cost of dampening vigorous debate. It is baffling that this legislation was even proposed to being with, I cannot comprehend why anyone would seek to protect vexatious litigants. Apr-19-2015
Against Don't gut this law; SLAPP laws are an important protection of free speech against malicious lawsuits. Apr-19-2015
Against I am working to pass an anti-SLAPP law in Ohio and have used Nevada's as a model. It would be a travesty for SB444 to weaken what has been a shining example for the rest of the nation. Apr-19-2015
Against I have friends in the U.S. and Canada who have been facing legal threats simply for telling the truth about their experiences with powerful and well-funded public figures. These figures have used lawfare to shut down critics, even though the information is clearly in the public interest. North America needs more Anti-SLAPP laws like Nevada's, not less. Apr-19-2015
Against DO NOT WEAKEN THE NATION's BEST SLAPP LAW! Please do not degrade yourselves nor our state. Our SLAPP law can draw in new businesses, especially tech sector businesses, because of its strong protections. Weakening this law serves little purpose, and no purpose for the non-corporate citizenry. Apr-19-2015
Against This cowardly attempt to gut Nevada's Anti-SLAPP law simply cannot stand. The cowards that support this baldfaced attempt by special interests to eviscerate the most important parts of the law will be run out of office. Apr-19-2015
Against This is sneaky legislation that effectively repeals the anti-SLAPP law that everyone worked so hard to put through last session. It allows rich people to beat up the media with frivolous lawsuits. Apr-19-2015
Against Goes against free speech and enables rich hotel magnates to bully people with frivolous litigation for years on end. Apr-19-2015
Against This bill guts an important bill that protects the average person - who cannot afford expensive litigation - from being beset upon my someone who CAN afford a lengthy court battle and doesn't like someone's protected, First Amendment speech. Any one of the proposed changes would be bad, but taken together I can only assume it is done because powerful donors don't like having to respect other people's right to speak. Apr-19-2015
Against I have been personally harassed by big companies attempting to sue me into oppressing my opinion. The anti-SLAPP legislation we have now saved me from financial ruin due to bullying. To regress would be an attack on free speech and small business. This bill is an outrage! I have lived here over 20 years, but WILL move my family and business out of Nevada if it passes. Apr-19-2015
Against Apr-19-2015
Against I am an attorney with Randazza Legal Group, which was heavily involved in the passage of Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute. Currently, Nevada has the strongest anti-SLAPP law in the United States. Not only has the statute ensured that the free speech rights of Nevadans are the strongest in the nation, it has prompted businesses to move to Nevada and will prompt more to do so. Now, this bill threatens to undermine all of that by weakening our existing anti-SLAPP laws, which will put our state at a competitive disadvantage with regard to attracting new businesses. Currently, our anti-SLAPP laws are stronger than those of California, Washington, and Oregon. This bill would irreparably change that, which will discourage tech, media, and entertainment companies from moving here. This state should concentrate on attracting new, diverse, and exciting businesses. It makes no sense to push them away. I implore you to reject this bill. Apr-19-2015
Against This bill is terrible. We have worked to move technology businesses here from California, and they were not willing to do so if they would lose the protection from California's Anti-SLAPP law. When Nevada passed its version, they started coming. Now you are trying to ruin it? This bill is awful. It makes the Anti-SLAPP law almost non-functional, you can't use it in federal court under this version, it won't deter frivolous lawsuits. Our clients are going to leave Nevada if this passes. Apr-19-2015
Against This bill eviscerates our anti-SLAPP law, which is one of the best in the country. 444 is horrendous for free speech Apr-19-2015
Against A SLAPP suit is one that a Plaintiff files against someone, knowing they won't win, but they don't care. The point of it is to punish you with attorneys' fees, and to scare anyone else who might speak in a way that you don't like. They don't protect you from liability for real defamation, but they do protect you from being dragged through three years of litigation over a claim that never should have been brought in the first place. Anti-SLAPP statutes are a good form of tort reform. They kill off frivolous claims that would otherwise chill free speech. They are a pretty amazing species of law, because they are pro-consumer *and* pro-business. Before Nevada had a real Anti-SLAPP law, my advice to any media company was "move your business to Washington, it has the best Anti-SLAPP law in the country." When Nevada passed its best-in-the-nation Anti-SLAPP law in 2013, that made Nevada really attractive to tech companies and media companies. I changed my tune immediately, and I managed to convince a handful of them to move to Nevada. Why? If you want to run a consumer review site, or a social networking site, or even just a blog, you know very well that at some point, you're going to get threatened with a defamation suit. And, ultimately, if you're in a state where there is no Anti-SLAPP protection, you're going to get sued and it will be catastrophic. Nevada largely adopted Washington's and California’ss Anti-SLAPP law, with a few local tweaks. It was great, but it didn't chill reasonable defamation claims. In fact, the first defamation case I was involved in after it passed was on behalf of a plaintiff. The law left plenty of room to seek redress for real defamation claims, but it turned the heat up on those who would abuse the judicial system. SB 444 is bad for freedom of expression, it is bad for business, it is bad for Nevada. You must vote against this bill, if you care about any of those things. Apr-19-2015
Against Apr-19-2015
Against This is a tremendous blow against the FIrst Amendment rights of Nevada individuals and businesses. Anyone commenting on any matter in a public forum (or even privately) can be subject to suit and have the protections of the law this bill seeks to amend completely eliminated. Any business that gives a forum to public opinion can also be sued. This is bad for Nevada, and will set a terrible example nationally. Apr-19-2015
Against Why remove the attorney's fee? the whole point of a slapp suit is that it is baseless. Thus awarding fees is part of the process. Why change the original bill? Apr-18-2015
Against Apr-17-2015
Against This bill destroys Nevada's powerful anti-SLAPP law. It removes the disincentive to file frivolous lawsuits as victims cannot automatically recover attorney's fees. Passing this bill will have dire consequences for our journalism and tech industries. There is no legitimate purpose for repealing our anti-SLAPP law that attracts jobs and free speech supporters to Nevada. Apr-16-2015
For Apr-06-2015

 


Horizontal Rule Bar
Session Info | NELIS | Interim Info | Law Library | General Info | Counsel Bureau | Research Library | Assembly | Senate | FAQs  
View Scheduled Meetings | Publications | Proposals | Career Opportunities | Gift Shop | Site Map | Contact Us  


© 2017 Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau
Nevada LCB Logo