Extra

"It has no precedent for how we've done things in the past," states Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio September 2, 2021 about Texas's new anti-abortion restrictions, considered the most restrictive so far from the creative Republican toolbox.

Totenberg may be correct regarding the Texas law's effort to grant near-universal "standing" as an enforcement mechanism to people wishing to sue anyone assisting women in obtaining abortions now illegal after six weeks of pregnancy, a circumstance during which most women have not yet noticed a pregnancy. If unchallenged, these parties may collect $10,000 from anyone who even gives information to a patient attempting to obtain an abortion if it in fact violates the new restrictions.

This seemingly universal standing appears to be unique to one local Berkeley Law School professor, who stated, " I can’t think of any other arena in which there is universal standing. It seems designed to create vigilantes, something Texas is already quite good at. It places the highest possible value on human embryos" adding "I would like to propose universal standing for police misconduct and all civil rights violations." “Standing” is a legal term used in connection with lawsuits and a requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution. Having standing does not mean that a party will win the case; it just means that the party has alleged a sufficient legal interest and injury to participate in the case.

But Totenberg wasn't considering the precedent set in SLAPPs, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, which uses civil, as opposed to criminal courts, to harass and punish people for simply speaking up about public matters, as four people did over UC's plans for People's Park in 1991 when the university tried to convert the park into a sports facility for sand-pit volleyball. 

David Nadel, owner of Ashkenaz, Mike Lee, local organizer, Bob Sparks, housing activist, and Carol Denney (writer of this article), folk musician/church secretary, were sued in civil court for "tortious interference" and $250,000 in compensatory damages. Tortious interference is a common law tort allowing a claim for damages against a defendant who wrongfully interferes with the plaintiff's "contractual or business relationships." 

It took years for UC to finally drop the damage charges based in my case on outrageous allegations of violence by parties, including two football players, who ultimately refused to testify against me. But I'm still bound by a raft of pointless, insulting legal injunctions. The case against the four of us wasn't the point. The point, as is the case in Texas's law, is to frighten and bewilder people, to make simple discussion dangerous and potentially so expensive that speech itself is chilled. 

Laura Prather, a member of the Public Participation Project Board and the Texas attorney instrumental in getting the Texas anti-SLAPP law enacted states, "If the lawsuit is over communications concerning getting an abortion, then I think it would be subject to the TCPA (Texas Citizens Participation Act ) because it is both a communication likely to qualify under our definition of 'exercise of right to petition' and because it would constitute an 'exercise of the right of free speech,' which protects communications made in connection with a matter of public concern. 'Matter of public concern' includes any matter of political, social, or other interest to the community or a subject of concern to the public.” 

Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin, in his rush to shake Chancellor Christ's hand over what most a raw deal for Berkeley, neglected to protect the public from Berkeley's continuing interest in intimidating critics' speech. As easily as he could have protected our parks and landmarks, he could have restored the safety of those with critical views of what Judge Seligman clearly agreed were outrageously inadequate environmental impact statements regarding UC's Long Range Development Plan. 

As the last living named SLAPP defendant, I call upon the Berkeley City Council to take up the issue of the use of SLAPPs and courts to avoid the open discussion the Council has avoided so far. The inappropriate, potentially illegal use of a closed session side-stepped the discussion our town needs to have about our own future, given UC's admission of fudged enrollment numbers and record of illegal special admissions for wealthy and regent-connected students. 

Nothing in Mayor Arreguin's deal stops the council from taking up SLAPPs, or the truth and reconciliation moment we've been deprived of by a Long Range Development Plan short-sighted and inaccurate in both its assumptions and its logical results, according to the courts so far. Has the entire Berkeley City Council turned its back entirely on our parks, our landmarks, our commitment to natural settings and open space, to rent-controlled and affordable housing? 

Ask them. Make sure they answer. There is an underlying racism in abandoning these commitments for communities who can't hop to Tahoe for their leisure or a glimpse of the sky. Don't re-elect anyone who claims that this deal, this handshake between butter-for-brains ambition and predictable corporate greed is a good thing.