rich guy in Idaho thinks he lives in Europe, tries to stop people from disagreeing with him

[dead0man]

FIRE

American democracy is built upon the idea that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” But rather than participate in the marketplace of ideas, some turn to the courts to silence their critics. The First Amendment, however, does not tolerate censorship-by-lawsuit.

Gary Gadwa is a lifelong public servant, with nearly 40 years of experience in search-and-rescue operations in Idaho’s Sawtooth National Recreation Area. Even in retirement, he volunteers as a fire lookout, spending weeks at a time on a mountaintop looking for the telltale signs of forest fires.

In 2022, Gary spoke out when a wealthy landowner applied for a permit to designate part of his 480-acre Sawtooth-area ranch as an airstrip. Michael Boren, who owns several ranches in the area, argued that his application was “public minded,” and that his airstrip could be used for search and rescue operations. But Gary, along with hundreds of other Idahoans, disagreed. They believed the airstrip was unnecessary and would mar the scenic values of the SNRA. Despite their objections, Boren was granted the permit.

But rather than take his permit and go home, Boren sued Gary and a number of other Idahoans for daring to speak out against him.

Gary’s case is emblematic of a common problem—the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP. As the name implies, these lawsuits chill the right all Americans enjoy to speak their minds on matters of public concern. Recognizing the threat SLAPPs pose to the First Amendment, 31 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes to help defendants fight back. Yet Idaho is not one of them.

[Senator Incitatus]

SLAPPs aren't an official designation or anything, and it sounds like the Gadwa and his team were engaging in Strategic Lying About Policy Positions. They tried to block development of a single airstrip on private property on the grounds that it disrupted "scenic views." No doubt some clever armchair lawyers came up with that one, not to mention the argument that a private development was "unnecessary."

I'm not going to dig into the precise details of the case, but to the extent the lawsuit chilled the speech of citizens outside an administrative forum or threatened any sort of monetary consequence against the defendants, it is bad. To the extent that it shut down frivolous objections within the confines of an administrative permit proceeding, it was a very good thing.

[SWE]

When I read the thread title I thought this would be about someone who delusionally believed he literally lived in Europe and was trying to somehow stop people from telling him he was in Idaho

[KaiserDave]

When I read the thread title I thought this would be about someone who delusionally believed he literally lived in Europe and was trying to somehow stop people from telling him he was in Idaho

I was disappointed when this was not the case.

[Ferguson97]

When I read the thread title I thought this would be about someone who delusionally believed he literally lived in Europe and was trying to somehow stop people from telling him he was in Idaho

Same, I thought he was going to be some weird variant of a sovereign citizen. Severely disappointed.

[Atlas Force]

Yeah I was excited to see what arguments he had for “Europe” (not a specific country in Europe or even the European Union, just the entire continent of Europe apparently) owning land in Idaho.