In the case Raanan Katz v blogger CASE NO. 12-2221 1-CIV-KING Federal Court ruled: "...the
Court's long-standing principle and practice of maintaining Court
proceedings and documents public, 'The Federal Judiciary has zealously
protected the right of all citizens to free, open and public trials'...The proceedings held in federal and state courts are open to public observation by any interested party. Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4 for the Southern District of Florida, absent some extraordinary need for secrecy, the judicial acts performed should be open to public scrutiny."
On November 1, 2012 Miami Dade Court held a hearing on Raanan Katz Motion for Preliminary Injunction against this blog.
Judge
Leesfield started the hearing with absolute brilliant speech : " Let me
say this, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. The Plaintiff (Raanan
Katz, Daniel Katz, RK Centers) asks this Court to enjoin the bloggings
of the Defendant. That type of activity froma court has been severely --
not severely, it's frowned upon from the Supreme Court case of Sullivan
on down, that kind of restraint is frowned upon, but it is not out of
the question under certain circumstances.
So
to start, I want to tell you that I'm relying heavily on two cases. One
is Dorothy Zimmerman versus Welby, and that's funny because I don't see
the cite on this case for some reason and the second is Murtagh,
N-U-R-T-A-G-H, versus Hurley. To frame this case, I'm going to do
something 1 rarely do which is I'm going to read to the lawyers
something from this case of Zimmerman versus -- Dorothy Zimmerman versus
Welby to tell you what evidence is acceptable and what is not, because
the issue here is whether or not the Defendant should be cut off in her
blogging or continue on, or whether she should be limited. So I read you
from this case which says, does it therefore follow that freedom of
speeoh is an absolute right, one which cannot under any circumstances be
curtailed or conditioned precedent and common sense indicate not.
Indeed the Florida Constitutional provision contains its own limitation.
One may speak, but not with impunity. The difficulty lies not so much
with determining whether a particular communication constitutes an
abuse, but whether the abuse is one which justifies injunctive relief.
As we have seen, any prior restraint is presumptively flawed. The cases
provide no clear path, but they do provide a trail. There's a
distinction between pure speech and what is sometimes designated as
commercial speech. advertising, other activities designated to improve
one's economic position at the expense of the other. However, if it
would be unfair, according to contemporary business standards, a
temporary injunction prohibiting a real estate salesman, for example,
from entering a premises of his former employee to solicit customers to
purchase real estate was upheld, though there were certain limitation.
There is a narrow line between what constitutes vigorous competition and
a free enterprise society and malicious interference with a favorable
business relationship under the heading of interference with perspective
advantage. Let me say this, as to this case, in the final analysis the
issue seems to turn upon whether the subject conduct is considered to be
unfair according to contemporary business standards and most
importantly, a distinction is made concerning any communication which is
defamatory, but which is uttered or published incident to another tort.
Defamatory word uttered in aid of another tort are said to constitute
verbal acts and they are prohibited. Let me just say that if the
Plaintiff (Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz, RK Centers) has proof that not only
that these blogs are concurrent to the tort, to another tort, and that
if they can demonstrate to this Court actual harm that has been derived
from this blog, it will give this Court a reason to believe with
substantial certainty, which is the standard, that future blogging will
cause more future damage. So it is the burden of the parties that seek
this injunctive relief to show actual damage as a result of the
blogging. Now, the Plaintiff (Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz, RK Centers) has
presented the Court with numerous blogs, but what the Plaintiff (Raanan
Katz, Daniel Katz, RK Centers) has not presented to the Court is a nexus
between those blogs and damage, and I had said the last time I spoke
with you all to submit pleadings and I would rule on the pleadings if I
could, but I do not think that I can because if I rule on the pleadings
at this moment, I have not seen actual harm. So I'm giving the Plaintiff
(Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz, RK Centers) an opportunity to show actual
harm."
STAY TUNED for Raanan Katz , Daniel Katz and RK Centers arguments on this hearing...
