More on Rep. Nima Kulkarni's pre-filed bill aimed at establishing an anti-SLAPP law in Kentucky and one of the cases that *may* have precipitated it.

In an open government context, anti-SLAPP laws have unique importance.

In the case WDRB analyzes here, and about which we have often written, the City of Taylorsville sued a frequent open records requester and local government critic, Lawrence Trageser, for publishing public records obtained through the open records law and from a source.

https://www.facebook.com/419650175248377/posts/584082758805117/?d=n

The city demanded that Trageser pay compensatory and punitive damages.

The financial, physical, and emotional toll of defending such a lawsuit — Trageser's case is pending in the Kentucky Court of Appeals — can be debilitating.

In rejecting the City of Taylorsville's claims, Spencer Circuit Court Judge Charles Hickman declared that "the purpose of the Open Records Act is to provide 'any person' with the opportunity to obtain 'free and open examination of public records'" and not to provide "an avenue of attack against a person who did not use the Open Records Act to obtain a public record."

Will Kentucky join 30 other states that have enacted anti-SLAPP laws that create no impediment to legitimate legal disputes about access to public records/meetings but preempt retaliatory lawsuits like Taylorsville v. Trageser?

Or will Kentucky continue to allow thin-skinned public officials, with greater financial resources and self-serving motives, to wage legal warfare in the hopes of silencing their critics?