Erie at Large: Laughlin vs. The Reader

Yavuzsariyildiz

It has been a year since The Erie Reader and our contributing editor Jim Wertz were sued by State Senator Dan Laughlin. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press, both of which are currently being contested by Laughlin with his lawsuit.

It was one year ago this month that this opinion column — Erie at Large — featured the exploits of a congressman and a state senator who, I joked, "walked into a bar" in search of a pardon. Of course, there was no bar — hence, the joke — and neither the congressman, Mike Kelly, nor the state senator, Dan Laughlin, sought a pardon, as I made abundantly clear throughout the piece.

Nevertheless, the actions each had taken — Kelly's vote against certifying results of the 2020 election and Laughlin's signing on to an amicus brief in Texas v. Pennsylvania, a case which asked the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin — placed them squarely within the category of actors for whom pardons were sought by Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks, I contended.

Congressman Kelly responded to the article by holding a combative press conference in which he scoffed at the press, and performed the Republican party's greatest hits of the past few years, from one gold-plated conspiracy to the next.

"The chairman of the Democrat party in Erie is the author of a blatant lie. And you want me to reply to it? Shame on it. Shame on it," Kelly told the press.

"Didn't you call the press conference?" the Erie Times-News asked.

Kelly called for us to retract my opinion piece. We declined.

Laughlin took a different, more litigious, path. In October he sued me and the Erie Reader for defamation, claiming a million dollars each in damages because — wait for it — he "likely faces an increase in re-election costs" in 2024 and, he claims, he's experienced "mental and emotional harm and has been the subject of humiliation."

Democracy, how dare thee…

Subsequently, the Erie Reader and I have spent the past year navigating the halls of constitutional justice. The case has exposed infighting between Laughlin and other members of the Republican party in Pennsylvania that has resulted in significant news coverage from local and national outlets.

The Philadelphia Inquirer published an article on June 16 in which its reporters wrote that "previously unreported communications obtained by The Inquirer show that, two days after (Christina) Bobb's email, Trump himself called [former gubernatorial candidate and State Senator Doug] Mastriano — this time peddling lies about Dominion voting machines."

The communications to and from Mastriano regarding strategy to stop Pennsylvania's slate of electors making its way to Washington on January 6 emerged from the Reader's discovery requests in the lawsuit filed by Laughlin.

"The new emails reveal additional details about Trump's pressure campaign in Pennsylvania and provide a behind-the-scenes glimpse into how it was received in Harrisburg. Election-related conspiracy theories and bad legal advice percolated quickly through the legislature," wrote the Inquirer's William Bender and Gillian McGoldrick.

The Philadelphia Inquirer article prompted a host of podcasts, social media, and other national media interest to Laughlin's lawsuit against us, reframing Laughlin's attack into further reporting on the very issues I spotlighted in my op-ed.

"On the surface, this might not seem especially notable," wrote Rachel Maddow Show producer Steve Benen on the MaddowBlog. "What makes this story interesting," he concluded, "is some of what we've learned as a result of the case."

And that commentary underscores some of the reasons why our defense — and the defense of the First Amendment, generally — remains so important. Without an independent free press to chronicle and make transparent the actions of our elected officials and their enablers, their voice becomes the single chord to lead the choir. It's not only disinteresting. It's dangerous for democracy.

It is burdensome and costly to defend against lawsuits like this one in part because, unlike many other states, Pennsylvania does not have robust protections against SLAPPs — strategic lawsuits against public participation — which are meritless lawsuits filed to suppress constitutionally protected speech. That could change soon. Erie's own Representative Ryan Bizzarro (D-Erie) recently introduced a bill that would allow defendants in meritless defamation suits like this one to file special motions for dismissal and force plaintiffs to pay the other side's attorney fees if a court determines that the action lacks merit.

If this bill were law, we may not be where we are today. For now, our fight continues, but we can't do it without you, Reader readers. We're grateful to those of you who have answered the call to invest in our legal defense fund. Your support got us this far.

Unfortunately, the wheels of justice turn slowly and our defense goes on. For how long we fight is not in our control. Stay with us. Visit our Erie Reader Legal Defense Fund GoFundMe (gofund.me/797307ec) and contribute as you can.

With your support the Erie Reader and the words we write will continue to come without a cost.

Jim Wertz is a contributing editor and Chairman of the Erie County Democratic Party. He can be reached at jWertz@ErieReader.com and you can follow him on Twitter @jim_wertz.