H.B. blogger and school trustee head back to court for more legal wrangling

A Huntington Beach blogger is pushing back against a school board member’s failed attempt to obtain a restraining order against him with a motion in Orange County Superior Court.

An attorney for Chuck Johnson, who manages HBSledgehammer.com, filed the anti-SLAPP motion May 8 against Ocean View School District trustee Gina Clayton-Tarvin.

SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation” and is considered an attempt to intimidate critics by burdening them with legal costs.

Johnson claims Clayton-Tarvin tried to stifle his right to criticize an elected official by falsely claiming he threatened her with physical, rather than metaphoric, harm.

The petition argues that Clayton-Tarvin’s request for a restraining order, which was denied by Judge Timothy J. Stafford May 9, should be rejected if she failed to “provide sufficient evidence” to demonstrate how Johnson’s criticism of the school board member on his blog, on social media and during school board meetings were meant as actual threats. Johnson is also seeking attorney’s fees.

A hearing with Stafford on Johnson’s motion is set for Wednesday in Superior Court.

On March 26, attorney Jeffrey W. Shields filed a petition for a restraining order against Johnson on behalf of Clayton-Tarvin, who alleged in court documents that Johnson threatened her online and at school board meetings, causing her to “fear for my own safety and for that of my immediate family members.”

Johnson at the time said the trustee tried to suppress his 1st Amendment rights and took his blog posts, Facebook comments and dark sense of humor too seriously and out of context, saying anyone who is “afraid of metaphors has serious issues.”

At one school board meeting, for example, Johnson told Clayton-Tarvin that her critics “ ... want your head on a stick” and “I’m going to give it to them.”

Stafford rejected the school board member’s request and called her petition “weak,” adding that she knew the consequences of elected office. Stafford also criticized Johnson, saying he was “not impressed” with his explanations for his actions.

Stafford added that he didn’t want to see either party return to court.

Both parties filed rebuttals in Superior Court affirming their stances. Clayton-Tarvin’s asserts that Johnson’s comments fall outside the scope of constitutionally protected speech while Johnson’s contends his words were not actual threats and are protected by the 1st Amendment.

“My position is, and continues to be, that threats of violence by Mr. Johnson against me are not constitutionally protected and are properly outside the bounds of free speech,” Clayton-Tarvin said in a prepared statement Friday. “I look forward to the court addressing this issue at the upcoming hearing and am optimistic the court will agree with this position.”

Johnson fired back with a statement of his own.

“It has been established that she knew the statements were not a viable threat (i.e., she was on notice of this fact) before filing her suit,” he said. “The information establishing that she was told by the HBPD that there was no viable threat was known to Tarvin prior to the filing.”

He said the complaint was filed to “punish or chill free speech since they are protected … .”

If the motion is dismissed by the judge, Johnson said in an interview that he will continue his legal battle.

Priscella.Vega@latimes.com

Twitter: @vegapriscella