<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Legal threats against &#8220;Retraction Watch&#8221;	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/04/legal-threats-retraction-watch-website/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/04/legal-threats-retraction-watch-website/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:53:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: John Burgess		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/04/legal-threats-retraction-watch-website/comment-page-1/#comment-210615</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Burgess]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:53:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=37887#comment-210615</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Unfortunately, anti-SLAPP laws only cover very narrow parts of speech and some states narrow it even further to apply only to criticism of government speech/policy.

There are (faint) moves to institute a federal anti-SLAPP law, but it hasn&#039;t been going anywhere for the past several years. In any event, it would only have effect on 1st Amendment issues.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately, anti-SLAPP laws only cover very narrow parts of speech and some states narrow it even further to apply only to criticism of government speech/policy.</p>
<p>There are (faint) moves to institute a federal anti-SLAPP law, but it hasn&#8217;t been going anywhere for the past several years. In any event, it would only have effect on 1st Amendment issues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: gitarcarver		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/04/legal-threats-retraction-watch-website/comment-page-1/#comment-210590</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gitarcarver]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:26:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=37887#comment-210590</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Popehat says there is a strong &quot;anti-SLAPP&quot; law in Texas where the defendants can recover costs incurred for lawsuits where there is no basis for a case.  

I don&#039;t see this any differently than a &quot;loser pays&quot; law.

This is not to say that we should have a &quot;loser pays&quot; for all lawsuits, but there are some lawsuits that are without any basis that cost people money and anguish that a person should be forced to pay for the costs for filing such frivolous suits.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Popehat says there is a strong &#8220;anti-SLAPP&#8221; law in Texas where the defendants can recover costs incurred for lawsuits where there is no basis for a case.  </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t see this any differently than a &#8220;loser pays&#8221; law.</p>
<p>This is not to say that we should have a &#8220;loser pays&#8221; for all lawsuits, but there are some lawsuits that are without any basis that cost people money and anguish that a person should be forced to pay for the costs for filing such frivolous suits.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
