Boulder, Colo. — A defamation case with wide-reaching implications for political discourse is set to unfurl in a Boulder courtroom. Slated for a trial on May 12, 2025, the legal battle began following accusations during the city’s 2021 election. Steve Rosenblum, a former candidate for Boulder City Council, has brought forth claims that the local activist group Boulder Progressives, through Eric Budd, intentionally spread false information about him to skew public perception and influence the election outcome.
In the contentious election year, an anonymous X account, nominally under Rosenbaum’s name, posted links to a blog that attributed fabricated statements to him. This case, paused for nearly two years due to preliminary appeals under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute, which aims to protect free expression, has now moved closer to trial following a Colorado Supreme Court decision to not review a lower court’s ruling.
If Rosenblum succeeds, the case could dictate new boundaries for how political activism is conducted online, especially concerning the creation and use of digital platforms to criticize public figures. For his part, Rosenblum is seeking damages for alleged harm to his reputation which he believes contributed to his narrow defeat in the council race, where he lost by less than 2,000 votes.
Stan Garnett, representing Rosenblum and a former Boulder County district attorney, expressed confidence in the merits of their case. “The trial will provide an opportunity to detail the significant impact this situation has had on my client’s personal and professional life,” said Garnett.
The defense argues that Budd’s actions fall under the protection of the First Amendment, describing the scenario as political activism rather than malicious intent. Further, they argue that the content posted on the Safer Leaks blog and linked via the created account does not reasonably imply Rosenblum’s endorsement of the material. John Culver, Budd’s attorney from the Lakewood-based firm Benezra and Culver, challenged the attribution in earlier motions, claiming that “no reasonable person” would believe Rosenblum endorsed those corrosive criticisms.
Legal observers note that the outcome could influence future political engagement rules on social media platforms, particularly concerning impersonation and attribution of content. “This lawsuit highlights a growing concern over how digital platforms are used in political campaigns and what is considered fair game in political discourse,” observed Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
As the trial date approaches, both parties have been actively preparing their cases, with potential for witness depositions and further subpoors for information relevant to the case. The unidentified author of the Safer Leaks blog continues to be a shadowy figure in the proceedings, with neither party having disclosed significant new information about their identity or involvement.
While a settlement remains a possibility with both sides open to dialogue, the broader implications of this case suggest that a judicial conclusion might provide a clearer precedent for similar cases in the future. The trial not only represents a personal battle for Rosenblum but also a litmus test for the boundaries of free speech and political activism in the digital age.