Seelig

Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp.

Good Law
119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 108·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 3974·2002 Daily Journal DAR 4125·97 Cal. App. 4th 798·30 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1691
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 16, 2002A094062California4,030 words

Opinion

Opinion

Simons, J.

Reality television and talk radio are two of the more popular cultural phenomena of the new century. In the first, real people often compete for a prize under the most unrealistic, often demeaning conditions. In the second, a host discusses topics of current interest with live guests and call-in audience members. These discussions often, though not always, include generous portions of insult and invective. Given these programming themes, it was inevitable that a participant in a reality television competition would be insulted by a talk-radio host and sue for defamation.

The instant appeal involves such a suit. Defendants Infinity Broadcasting Corporation, Uzette Salazar, Vincent Crackhom and Steve Dinardo filed a special motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint and asserted that the suit constituted a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) suit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (hereafter section 425.16). The trial court denied the motion. We conclude that the challenged commentary was made “in connection with an issue of public interest” (§425.16, subd. (e)(3) & (4)), even though much of it concerned plaintiff’s unwillingness to appear on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.