Plaintiff Blackman sued journalist Jack Poulson, Substack, and Tech Inquiry over online reporting about his arrest for felony domestic violence. The government chose not to pursue charges, and a court sealed the arrest records. But police subsequently released the report without restriction, and a confidential source sent it to Poulson.

Defendants filed special motions to strike the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court granted each motion, finding that Blackman’s claims arose from protected online speech about a matter of public interest and that the First Amendment barred the claims. It also held that Section 230 independently barred the claims against Substack and Tech Inquiry, and later awarded defendants attorney fees. Blackman appealed both orders. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, agreeing that the reporting involved protected activity and that Blackman could not demonstrate a probability of prevailing. His role leading a government contractor and holding a security clearance connected the reporting to public concerns.

The First Amendment protected the publication of truthful information of public significance that Poulson had lawfully obtained. Blackman did not dispute truthfulness on appeal, and he showed no state interest sufficient to justify liability after the government’s unrestricted release. Section 230 separately protected Substack and Tech Inquiry as neutral conduits for Poulson’s content. Blackman inadequately developed his argument that his claims did not treat them as publishers.

Blackman v. Substack, Nos. A173244 & A174800 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2026)