Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Kentucky Bloggers Lawsuit (AP)

We cleared the first hurdle before being able to put the real damaging evidence before the judge, as she ruled before we had time. Nevertheless, this is a very encouraging and important first step. Consider that U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell said the case had merit even after the Fletcher administration's disingenuous argument that BluegrassReport.org was not singled out.

Of course, that was before last week's blockbuster public admission by Mike Inman, who was in charge of the administration's Commonwealth Office of Technology at the time of the ban, who now acknowledges that BGR was in fact specifically targeted.

Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Kentucky Bloggers Lawsuit
Associated Press

FRANKFORT, Ky. A federal judge refused to dismiss a free-speech lawsuit filed by a political commentator against Gov. Ernie Fletcher.

U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell on Friday referred the case filed by Internet blogger Mark Nickolas to a federal magistrate to manage the exchange of evidence in the case and to conduct a settlement conference “as he deems appropriate.”

Recall what Inman told Ryan Alessi last week:

Inman also said the culture of state government demanded loyalty above nearly all else. Inman said the distaste for criticism even led high-ranking officials to move to specifically block the blog bluegrassreport.org.

...A similar attitude led to the administration shutting out external critics, such as the political blog bluegrassreport.org, run by Democratic operative Mark Nickolas, Inman said.

Last summer, the administration blocked state workers from viewing that blog and others, prompting Nickolas to file a federal lawsuit.

Inman said he first heard about the move when Rutledge bragged to him, "Well, we finally blocked bluegrassreport.org."

"He said, 'It's perfectly legal.' He got defensive about it, and said, 'Well they wouldn't ever know we did it because we hid it in a bunch of other stuff,'" Inman recalled Rutledge saying. "I said, 'There will be a lawsuit about this.'"

So much for all the predictions by Fletcher-loyalists that the case would be dismissed...

Comments

[Bleu]

Let me be the first to congratulate you Mark. This was the highest hurdle for you to go over in this litigation and you did it. Surviving summary judgement in a case which involves employees using company time in reading a blog as a First Amendment right; WOW. I know the case is more complex than that, but thats just how Scalia would word it. WOW.

[kentondem1]

Mark, you indeed did win a victory. Congratulations.

The fun part will be depositions. They will make for great reading.

I trust you will be a better negotiator than Stumbo, when it comes to settlement talks. There is no way Ernie wants a jury trial on this.

[DisgustedNKY1]

The sun is indeed shining bright today!
Congratulations Mark. It is validation you are doing the right thing.

[Terry]

So Mark, how long now before Anne Northup starts defending your right to free speech?

[Jim Anderson Stivers]

Mark, I am glad to see that the constitution of the United States is alive in Kentucky.It may not be well, but alive.

How would one figure punitive damages.
Forget about, I am sorry, and all the bulla.
What would be a fair punitive (financial) punishment, should this end in Marks favor?
I know he must have incurred some cost in this and some temporary set back in the growth of the blog.

It is hard to tell and punitive. I would think the amount would depend on how painful it would be for the insurance companies to pay off the liability of a governor who has 0 credibility

I would say in the hundreds of thousands.
And that is probably not enough, but it would establish a BENCHMARK as a precautionary measure, should similar actions occur later. Benchmarks gain value over time.

[Still Speaking Truth To Idiots]

It can still be dismissed. And since state employees are not viewed in a highly favorable light, I'd say when evidence is presented showing how much time state workers spent reading this and other blogs instead of doing their jobs, they won't have a sympathetic ear from a jury of taxpayers.

[Bleu]

Technically, yes it can still be dismissed. However, its not likely. BGR has survived the 12b6, so its going to fly in court.

Stateworkers should still be allowed to use their time, such as lunch and breaks to use the internet for personal use (outside of porn). It is up to a supervisor to limit excessive use.

The kicker is going to be testimony about how the State particularly wanted to block BGR.

[Sam Wise]

Idiot! But .... BUT YOU SAID THE JUDGE WOULD GIVE FLETCHER SUMMARY JUDGMENT!

Kidding aside, your commitment to a conscious disregard of the law is as breathtaking as your commitment to the dead dog that's named Sadie.

It's a question of governmental action discriminating based on political message and an individual web page speaker's opinions. That same Kentucky state government that's violated the U.S. Constitution here (and last week, in its firing of Mike Duncan) has sought to use criminal charges in tandem with this clumsy effort to silence those who it views as political enemies.

It's a damned far cry from "I disagree with your opinions, but I'll defend to the death your right to say them."

Now, it's "I disagree with your opinions, and I will shut you down and throw you in jail if you keep having contrary political opinions."

How positively Stalinesque of you, Idiot.

[Still Speaking Truth To Idiots]

Criminal charges? That's news to me...

[Dean]

Very interesting the selective threads that Babbling Republican Idiots are sticking to these days.