Thanks for staying engaged with this, as it’s consumed a hefty portion of my time lately, and I appreciate the support. The good news is four of the five counts have been withdrawn, we we’re headed in a good direction.

I also plan to alert senior management to this example of how their bullying has backfired on them.

“Coop, what about Sahara’s “freedoms” or at least right to privacy.”

Most people are aware that public figures don’t enjoy a broad right to privacy. As the Journal of Constitutional Law said in 2016, “In the United States, because of the widely accepted belief in the ‘right to know’ information of public concern, freedom of speech generally over- rides public figures’ right to privacy. As a result, public figures have almost no right to privacy….”

Corporations are generally regarded as public figures. (e.g., “Like other public figures, corporations affect public affairs, take political positions, engage in matters of pub- lic concern and controversy, and have reputations. A foundational commitment of free speech law, perhaps the foundational commitment, is that public figures don’t and can’t own their reputations.” — Minnesota Law Review, 98:455]

“Your assumption is what VV published is 100% truth.”

It’s not an assumption, it’s objective fact. Scott said, among other things, “”Sahara’s closure has not been announced or confirmed.” What, you think that Sahara *did* announce or confirm that they’re closing?

Scott also identified the idea of Sahara closing as a *rumor*. It’s 100% truth that it was a *rumor*.

Scott’s source(s) is/are confidential. That’s how it works, in both blogs and pro news organizations: you have to respect sources’ desire not to be named or those sources won’t talk to you, and then you don’t have news. For example, without confidential sources, the public never would have found out about Watergate.

Confidential/unnamed sources are not “anonymous”; their identities are known by *the reporters*.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1104/confidential-sources

This is just so much B.S. Filing a defamation lawsuit against someone who did not commit defamation, in order to silence him and/or extort money from him, is exactly what bullying is. Scott’s post was (1) identified as a rumor, not fact, and (2) was backed by at least one credible source. Have you noticed that Scott’s batting average on rumors/predictions is excellent? It’s because he uses good sources.

Sahara sued a responsible journalist practicing responsible journalism to shut him up. That’s bullying.

Ditto for me. As I said in another thread, I started a “Vegas Hall of Shame” on my site specifically to induct Sahara is the inaugural member. My wife was worried about that: “If they sued Scott, why wouldn’t they sue you?” It’s a fair question, but I’m willing to take the risk. And if it happens, like Scott, I will fight back. Freedoms don’t really exist if you’re intimidated into not exercising them.

And above all, I hate bullies.

It would be funny if Sahara wasn’t actually struggling before, but the blowback from their suing a beloved local blogger is what wound up sinking them. Probably won’t happen that way, but I know they’re losing at least *some* customers, and in this economy, every customer is precious. They shot themselves in the foot on this one.

I’m glad Scott’s fighting this and I sincerely hope he wins.

Now, there’s no way I’m going there.

Keep up the good fight, Scott.