Journalists are friends of the First Amendment, and of courts that uphold it against bogus defamation claims.

Your faithful reporter has filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Coleman v. Grand, about the right of a jazz protege and #MeToo survivor to speak out about her experiences.

As many or most readers of “Words for the Wise” know, I have spent much of the past five years as a #MeToo reporter, investigating cases of sexual misconduct and other abuses—including bullying—in academia, mainly the sciences. This work, which began when I was a correspondent for Science, continued at The Verge (Vox media), and which I now do independently, has led to the firing or forced resignation of a significant number of abusers. I link to all of the cases I have worked on in a constantly updated page on Balter’s Blog, where most of those investigations now appear.

The most recent example of severe consequences for an abuser who was subject to my reporting is Peruvian archaeologist and former culture minister Luis Jaime Castillo Butters, who has just been ejected from membership of the National Academy of Sciences after a misconduct investigation.

This reporting, carried out in collaboration with survivors who approach me and ask for help telling their stories—usually because all other institutional avenues to seek justice have failed them—has led to many threats of defamation suits by accused abusers. In one recent case, I was sued for defamation in federal court. The case went on for 13 painful months before being settled, with no money paid on my side and all my reporting retained intact. (To avoid violating the settlement I am not linking to that reporting here, but it can all be found on Balter’s Blog.)

Of course, I am far from the only reporter covering #MeToo issues, and certainly not the only one who has been threatened with litigation or actually sued. But one thing I have learned is that both journalists and survivors of abuse share an interest in defending their First Amendment rights to speak out against misconduct, and in fighting back against attempts to silence them.

That’s why, on October 14, I filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in a #MeToo defamation case that is well known among jazz musicians but probably not many others: Coleman v. Grand. In doing so, I had the able representation of the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic, and I want to thank the staff and students for their hard work on the brief. In doing so, I am taking the side of the defendant, Maria Grand, a young and brilliant jazz musician, who was sued in 2018 by her mentor for defamation after she described her abusive relationship with him to a fairly small group of colleagues.

Grand’s mentor was Steve Coleman, 36 years her senior and also a brilliant musician, with whom Grand studied for a number of years. Their relationship was complicated, both agree, but ultimately Grand felt able to speak out about what she characterized as constant pressure from Coleman for sex if she was to continue as his protege. When Grand tried even in a very modest way to speak out about her experiences, without even naming Coleman (although he insisted everyone in their milieu would know it was him), he brought litigation against her.

And, in the U.S. district court, he lost the case (for the Court decision please see this link; full disclosure, the lead attorney defending Grand is Mark Bailen of the law firm BakerHostetler, who also led the legal team that defended me in my recent defamation case.) However, Coleman has now appealed the lower court’s decision to the U.S. Second Circuit, and it is in favor of Grand’s defense against that appeal that I have filed my amicus brief.

I am not going to go into more detail than that about what happened between Coleman and Grand. Maria Grand, when she spoke out about what she felt was abuse and exploitation, did not ask to become a public figure. But since the court record is public, I will link to the appellate brief Mark Bailen and the legal team have filed with the Second Circuit, which includes as many details as anyone could want or need.

In my amicus brief, my attorneys and I make a number of points about why all journalists should be interested in the outcome of this case. Let me quote from a few passages.

Amicus Michael Balter is an independent investigative journalist who reports

on issues concerning sexual harassment and assault, particularly in academia and

the sciences. He and other journalists covering similar issues regularly face the

threat of legal action in connection with this reporting.

Litigations like the one against amicus Balter are no more than an attempt to

silence survivors of sexual assault and harassment and the reporters telling their

stories. Even where a journalist will ultimately prevail on the merits of a libel suit,

defending such a suit is expensive and time-consuming.

The positions Plaintiff-Appellant urges in this case would upend the New

York legislature’s recent amendments to the state’s anti-SLAPP statute and have

dire practical consequences for journalists who cover #MeToo issues. In the

attached brief, amicus Balter primarily seeks to address these real-world

implications and to urge affirmance of the decision below. First, the brief provides

an overview of the critical role journalists play in exposing sexual misconduct by

powerful individuals. Next, the brief addresses the legal risks journalists face in

covering such stories, the particular harm frivolous lawsuits aimed at silencing

survivors and reporters cause to freelance journalists and small publications, and

the chilling effect that these suits have on journalists and survivors alike. Finally,

the brief argues that robust First Amendment protections – such as those reflected

in New York’s recent amendments to its anti-SLAPP statute and in the district

court’s decision – are especially crucial for journalists covering #MeToo-related

stories. In short, the proposed brief provides the Court with a unique perspective

on the practical consequences at stake in this case beyond the implications for the

parties themselves.

For those interested in the detailed legal arguments, I would urge you to read the rest of the amicus brief, which goes into quite a bit of detail. A key issue is the relevance of New York state’s new anti-SLAPP legislation (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) which was signed into law by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo last November and which has already been invoked a number of times in both state and federal court. Anti-SLAPP laws, which are already in effect in many other states and are even being considered by the entire European Union, are designed to put an early end to frivolous lawsuits designed only to silence those exercising their free speech rights. All journalists, and all citizens concerned with the First Amendment, should be familiar with them and support them.

And survivors of abuse and exploitation like Maria Grand should not have to worry about being sued if and when they speak out about their experiences. Hopefully, the Second Circuit will put a quick end to these continuing efforts to silence her and other survivors.