A Bolinas newspaper that was sued by a local woman over its publication of sharply worded letters is seeking to have the case dismissed as unconstitutional and retaliatory.

A lawyer for the Bolinas Hearsay News filed a motion in December asking a judge to toss out the lawsuit brought in August by
Cheryl Ruggiero, who alleged that two pieces published in 2024 defamed her. The Hearsay’s motion claims the litigation is a so-called SLAPP—shorthand for strategic litigation against public participation—intended to censor or intimidate critics by saddling them with costly legal action.

Marin County Superior Court Judge Stephen Freccero initially denied the motion in an opinion on Monday, ruling that the defendants had not met the threshold required under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. But at a hearing on Tuesday, Judge Freccero said he would continue deliberating on whether the case qualifies for dismissal. 

“The question is whether a specific statute designed to prevent people from chilling free speech by bringing frivolous lawsuits applies here,” he said. “I think the question is better understood as, are there circumstances in which someone does not have the right to bring legal action for defamation?”

California’s anti-SLAPP law, enacted in 1992, allows judges to dismiss claims that arise from protected speech on matters of public concern unless the plaintiff shows a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. In recent years, state courts have applied a narrower interpretation of the law. In a 2019 ruling, the California Supreme Court clarified that only speech intended to further public discussion qualifies for protection. That distinction now sits at the center of the Bolinas dispute.

At issue are two scorching diatribes published by the Hearsay, an unconventional paper whose motto is “Everyone is a reporter,” amid contentious debates over the war in Gaza and an emergency R.V. park providing shelter for dozens of Latino residents displaced from substandard housing. Ms. Ruggiero, a lawyer who has lived in the town for decades, was outspoken on both issues, expressing support for Israel and opposition to the housing project. 

In two meandering letters, contributor José Leyva accused Ms. Ruggiero of supporting war crimes and described her as a “faithful representative” of “racism and white supremacism in Bolinas.”   

“It’s one thing for Mr. Leyva to debate the Israel-Gaza war or the R.V. park,” said Paul Levine, Ms. Ruggiero’s attorney. “It’s quite another for him to make statements about my client that go beyond furthering the discussion. Calling my client a racist-Zionist, a white supremacist, having a criminal mindset, being mentally ill, taking action against a community—those are not statements that contribute to public discourse.”

Judge Freccero pressed the defense on whether the language advanced a broader debate. “Why does Mr. Leyva saying Ms. Ruggiero is a racist, et cetera, further the discussion?” he asked.

Jack Siedman, the lawyer representing the Hearsay, countered that the statements were expressions of opinion plainly tied to matters of public concern. He pointed to a letter in which Mr. Leyva argued that Ms. Ruggiero’s defense of Israel’s conduct amounted to an endorsement of actions deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice. “You have been justifying war crimes for months now,” Mr. Leyva wrote. “You are of a criminal mindset.”

“This is a really good example of where he is absolutely addressing a public issue and making his own observations in furtherance of that public debate,” Mr. Siedman said. “He is not saying she is a criminal or that she intends to commit a crime. He is saying that when she supports a country that commits a war crime, that she’s of a criminal mindset.”