Nevada Senate Bill 444 – Groundhog Day

On SB444 – Wynn Resorts’ lobbyist proposed a compromise. The compromise was reasonable. We might not have liked it, but there was no reason not to agree to the compromise.

The Senate did not agree to the compromise.

Now it is back to the Assembly. But, the Assembly has been a bipartisan body of reason on SB444.

How you can help stop SB444.

1. Go to this page.

2. Enter “SB444” without any spaces or use the drop down menu and scroll aa.

3. Click the “Get Bill Information” button.

Make sure you comment on SB444 (not AB) and choose the April 14 version from the drop down menu.

Make sure you comment on SB444 (not AB) and choose the April 14 version from the drop down menu.

4. Type in your comments.

5. Enter your name and address, which is kept confidential.

6. Click submit.

What if you don’t want to post a comment using your real address?

No problem.

You can signal boost this article or any other articles on Twitter under the #SB444 or #StopSB444 hash tags.

Click here to go to Twitter to signal boost articles opposing censorship.

Even better – write to your assembly member or to Governor Sandoval

To write to your Assembly Member, follow these steps:

1. Find out who your assembly member is by using this interactive map.

2. Or look here – if you already know.

3. Write them an email or a letter about how you feel toward SB444

If you want a short tutorial on the different sides of this debate, watch below:

My Testimony

And this is the guy pushing to gut Nevada’s Anti-SLAPP law.

(Note, this is an edited version. My prior version was vituperative and immature, and I have edited it to remove those elements)

7 Responses to Nevada Senate Bill 444 – Groundhog Day

  1. agent provocateur says:

    Reblogged this on Nevada State Personnel Watch.

  2. CPlatt says:

    Marc it would be helpful if you can clarify whether there is anything that non-Nevada residents can do. I assume not, but, assumptions always entail the risk of being wrong.

  3. Langberg is a {deleted by editor}, and every stereotype about blood sucking lawyers come true.

    • I have modified your comment to remove the personal attack on his appearance. That’s not fair, not part of the issue at hand, and even Mitch Langberg deserves to be treated fairly – whether he would return the favor or not.

      Besides, between the two of us (me and Mitch) I look more like the villain.

  4. Reblogged this on The Transatlantic Trademark Lawyer and commented:
    Not really a trademark matter, but of great concern to all fans of freedom of speech.

  5. […] Randazza, who testified against the original SB444, blogged on the sleazy nature of the workings in Carson […]

  6. Marc Reiner says:

    When will the committee evaluate your arguments? I’m assuming he meant a “better than even probability” of winning on the merits and therefore surviving a motion to dismiss on the pleadings or MSJ. Is his position that he can allege defamation claims and then do discovery of whether it’s truth-value can be determined or merely ask for evidence showing a knowledge of falsehood? I honestly couldn’t discern his position and I don’t know if it’s my lack of the bill’s background or that his argument was intentionally vague on that point.

    I thought you sounded good but, more importantly, legally and public policy-wise far more persuasive.

%d bloggers like this: