Paul Alan Levy, a public interest attorney at Public Citizen, specializes in defending internet-related free speech cases, particularly those involving individuals targeted by lawsuits for their online expression. While personally committed to protecting all forms of speech, Levy balances this ideal with the progressive values of his organization. He only takes cases when the speech is legally defensible and advancing the case could help set a broader legal precedent. Throughout his career, Levy has developed legal strategies, like the influential Dendrite test, to protect anonymous online speakers from frivolous or strategic lawsuits intended to silence them (SLAPP suits). He warns against threats to online speech, such as efforts to dismantle Section 230 protections, and emphasizes the need for libel insurance for content creators. Despite the growing challenges posed by powerful individuals, corporations, and shifting legal standards, Levy continues to advocate for robust protections of free expression in the digital age.

Paul Alan Levy:

I like the idea of protecting speech of all kinds, even if I potentially disagree with it, although I’m constrained by the fact that I work for Public Citizen, which is a progressive organization which isn’t always happy with my defending speech with which some of my colleagues at Public Citizen disagree. Beyond that, the question is whether the plaintiff has a tenable claim and whether – for all sorts of claims that may be made against speech, there are degrees of validity and degrees of protection, and I have to assess two things, really. First of all, is the speech legally defensible? And will defending the speech in a particular instance help advance the law by making it easier for other speakers? And really, both conditions have to be met for me to take a case.

Links: