This week, Attorney Rosensweig is discussing the $13 million lawsuit that was filed by D.C. author, Natasha Tynes, against her publisher after it announced that it would no longer be publishing her book following claims of her online racism.  Natasha Tynes was riding the subway just weeks before her book was set to be released when she tweeted about an African American MTA worker eating on the train (including a photograph of the unsuspecting woman eating and alerting the MTA as to where and when she saw this MTA worker eating).  The Twitterverse was very upset about what it deemed to be a racist attack against this MTA worker and, after receiving threats to boycott the publisher's other authors, the publisher decided to release a statement saying that it would no longer publish Ms. Tynes' book.  Ultimately, the publisher did publish the book but Ms. Tynes filed suit anyway, asserting claims of defamation, emotional distress and breach of contract and seeking $13 million in damages.  Attorney Adam J. Schwartz, who represented the publisher in this fascinating lawsuit, describes the intricacies of the case and how it ultimately settled. We discuss SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) and the way that some states are enacting statutes to force plaintiffs to pay for defendants' legal fees if it is determined that their lawsuit was indeed a SLAPP suit, filed solely for the purpose of trying to silence someone's free speech by harassing them with a frivolous lawsuit.  What are anti-SLAPP motions?  Why have only some states and not others enacted statutes to push back against SLAPP suits? Why has there not been a federal statute to prohibit SLAPP suits? What about other types of frivolous claims that are rampant in the U.S.? My esteemed guest and I discuss all of this and more in this engaging and philosophical episode.