## Facts

- Christopher Stone ran StickyDrama.com, a website that posted lewd and scandalous photos, and he also sought media attention by presenting himself as a “sextortion” authority who warned about online sexual exploitation of teenagers.
- In 2009, Stone posted on StickyDrama.com an image showing a teenage girl masturbating next to an infant, and the caption mistakenly identified the girl as Alyssa Backlund (the photo actually depicted an underage girl from Ohio).
- Backlund received hate mail and harassment after the post circulated online.
- About a year later, Stone obtained a topless photo of Backlund and publicly tweeted a threat to publish it if Backlund did not stop trying to contact him.
- After Stone’s public threat, Adrian Chen, a journalist for Gawker.com, interviewed Backlund about Stone’s conduct, and Gawker published an article portraying Stone as engaging in “sextortion.”
- Backlund sued Stone and the StickyDrama website over the misidentified lewd image and related conduct.
- Stone responded with an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Backlund’s complaint, arguing his posting was protected speech; the trial court denied that motion on the ground that the image was not constitutionally protected because it constituted child pornography, and Stone did not appeal.
- Stone later filed his own action against Backlund for defamation (and related tort claims) based on statements attributed to Backlund in the Gawker reporting and similar communications describing Stone’s conduct as “sextortion.”
- Backlund filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Stone’s complaint under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, contending her statements were made in connection with an issue of public interest in a public forum.
- The trial court denied Backlund’s motion, reasoning the dispute was essentially private and focused on Backlund’s personal experience with Stone rather than a broader public issue.
- Backlund appealed from the order denying her anti-SLAPP motion.

## Issues

1. Whether Backlund’s statements about Stone to a journalist for publication, describing his conduct in terms of “sextortion,” were acts in furtherance of free speech in connection with a public issue under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16.
2. If so, whether Stone showed a probability of prevailing on his defamation (and related) claims sufficient to defeat the anti-SLAPP motion.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying Backlund’s anti-SLAPP motion.
- The court held that Backlund satisfied the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis because the challenged claims arose from protected speech activity connected to an issue of public interest and communicated through a public forum (statements to the press for online publication).
- The court held Stone failed to meet the second prong because he did not make the required evidentiary showing of a probability of prevailing on his defamation and related tort theories.
- The court directed that Stone’s complaint be stricken under § 425.16 and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that disposition, including Backlund’s entitlement to statutory attorney’s fees and costs.

## Legal Principles

- California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, requires a two-step analysis: (1) the moving party must show the challenged claims arise from protected activity; (2) if so, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show a probability of prevailing on the claim with admissible evidence.
- Communications made to the press for publication may qualify as speech in a public forum and can fall within § 425.16 when connected to a topic that has attracted public attention or implicates broader community concerns.
- A topic may constitute a matter of public interest when it involves public safety concerns, online exploitation or harassment risks, or the conduct of a person who has injected himself into public discussion on the same topic.
- On the second prong, defamation plaintiffs must present evidence of a legally sufficient claim, including a provably false statement of fact; statements that are substantially true, or opinions based on disclosed facts, generally do not support liability.
- Anti-SLAPP relief extends to claims that are based on the same protected speech, even when labeled as other torts (such as emotional distress), when liability depends on the alleged defamatory speech.
- A prevailing anti-SLAPP movant is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs under § 425.16(c).

## Conclusion

Backlund v. Stone held that Backlund’s statements to a reporter about Stone’s alleged sextortion-like conduct were protected activity under California’s anti-SLAPP statute because they related to a public-interest topic aired in an online public forum, and the Court of Appeal reversed the denial of her motion, ordered Stone’s complaint stricken, and left Backlund entitled to statutory fees.


Backlund v. Stone, 2012 WL 3800883 (2012)