“Historic Win for Animals, Advocacy, and Freedom of Speech!”

Carolina Tails | June 30, 2022

By Joe Elmore, President and CEO of Charleston Animal Society

A HORSE CARRIAGE COMPANY’S LAWSUIT AGAINST ANIMAL ADVOCATES COLLAPSES IN COURT.

Charleston Animal Society and other animal advocacy organizations and individuals won a major lawsuit brought against them to intimidate and stifle their efforts to bring humane reform to Charleston’s carriage tourist attraction. This was a win for animals, advocacy and freedom of speech!

8 key takeaways from court ruling

Horseless E-Carriages Unveiled for Charleston!

Kyle Kelly, a local King Street Shop Owner, apparently spent years carefully considering safety measures we promote. Will City Council help implement this humane resolution?

Electric horseless carriage

High Tech Meets Humane

Carolina Tails | June 30, 2022

By Dan Krosse

ROME, BARCELONA, PHILADELPHIA, CHICAGO, NEW YORK, NEW ORLEANS — CITIES AROUND THE GLOBE ARE LINING UP TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE E-CARRIAGE, BUILT RIGHT HERE IN CHARLESTON.

BUT WHY DOES THE HOLY CITY APPEAR TO BE GIVING THE VENTURE THE COLD SHOULDER?

News Article Highlighting History of Abuses by Carriage Industry… “Five Horses Dead in Less than 2 Years”

Horse care-taker Nancy Lane says Samson the horse died earlier this month after years of service as a carriage horse downtown for the Carolina Polo and Carriage Company, owned by Richard Knoth.

Lane claims Samson was the fifth of Knoth’s horses to die in her care in the past two years. She accuses Knoth of over-working and under-feeding the horses, and that three of the rive that died weren’t seen by a vet because Knoth didn’t want to pay for it.

Mercury Column – AUG2021

Op-Ed by Joe Elmore on Citizens Carriage Safety Ordinance

A Tiny Victory for Charleston’s Carriage Horses

A year ago, a local nonprofit advocacy organization, Charleston Carriage Horse Advocates (CCHA), introduced a common sense safety measure to City Council, which would enhance the safety of citizens, both adults and children, tourists, carriage industry employees and carriage horses.  Nothing in the measure would adversely impact the profits generated from this tourist attraction.

Why enhanced safety measures?

Since 2016, CCHA states that they are aware of 120 documented safety related incidents in Charleston related to extraordinarily large carriages or wagons.  This is an alarming statistic, especially since yet another horse was killed last year and this tourist attraction has resulted in countless injuries to both humans and animals, including the death of both.  With the population density continually increasing in the downtown area along with accelerating construction, which is a contributing factor to many carriage incidents since equines are so easily spooked, significant precautions should be taken, as they have been in other cities, to increase the safety of this tourist enterprise.

However, without the advocacy of organizations such as Charleston Carriage Horse Advocates, Charleston Animal Society and others, progress on this issue would be stagnant.  For the record, neither CCHA nor the Animal Society has called for a ban on this enterprise, only for significant reform guided by an independent study.  Note: an increasing number of cities in both the United States and overseas have banned this enterprise altogether.

Six years ago, following a horrific incident where a carriage horse lie helpless on the street for nearly 3 hours in July, the Animal Society requested the City to provide an independent review of the incident for the purpose of preventing them from occurring in the future.  A review, albeit not independent, was conducted with recommendations – that was in 2015.  Most of the common sense recommendations, such as equine first responder training and equine triage kits,  structured training of carriage drivers and horses, driver competency examinations, equipment safety checklists, and Tourism Commission review of health care and management requirements to ensure up-to-date practices consistent with national standards were not incorporated in the ordinance and fell by the wayside.  Yet, incident upon incident continued to occur.

Occasionally, when safety measures were addressed by a member of the Tourism Commission, those members were admonished by the Tourism Director, carriage industry and others.  Yet, both people, including children, and horses continued to suffer injury, to the degree that a horse last year was put down.

While Charleston Animal Society, which was founded nearly 150 years ago to prevent cruelty to animals, specifically addressing the plight of working animals, has recognized Charleston’s carriage enterprise as the harshest working conditions of this type for equines in the country, the Charleston Carriage Horse Advocates has consistently brought pressure on the City and industry to reform, not ban, this tourist attraction.

Hence, in trying to work with the City and industry, CCHA, at its own cost, researched safety measures and submitted a common sense safety ordinance to City Council a year ago.

City Council referred the matter to Tourism Commission.  The spirit of what was a citizen-led, grassroots effort to provide for a safer environment downtown was the expectation, and commitment by some elected officials, for a process that would provide for real, sustained dialogue, which is why a tourism commission exists.  Instead, the process was quickly slanted against the residents and citizens initiating this democratic right – citizen advocacy which is supposed to be a basis for our democratic ideals and system of government.

CCHA was not allowed to make a full presentation to the Tourism Commission and relegated to public comment opportunities of 2, sometimes, 3 minutes each in various committees.

CCHA’s proposal focused on drivers, carriages, children and transparency and included common sense measures.

Is there any reason why we shouldn’t screen drivers for drugs and alcohol like any commercial vehicle operator entrusted with the safety of more than a dozen people? Is there any reason why we shouldn’t have engineers inspect carriages once a year to ensure they’re safe? Is it really a good idea to have only one driver responsible for managing an animal, maneuvering streets, avoiding bystanders, overseeing safety protocols, and giving a tour when we already prohibit distracted driving in motor vehicles? The answers are fairly obvious to anyone outside the industry or those representing a city that benefits financially from the enterprise.

Sadly, what will go before City Council on August 17th, a year later, is a tiny victory for the working horses.  Had it not been for CCHA, what was recommended 6 years ago, prompted by Charleston Animal Society, would still be buried away in the past.

A tiny victory was achieved by the safety advocates, but a victory no less, with much more work to be done to realize meaningful reform.

The fact remains that every day that goes by without doing what we can as a city to improve safety carries the risk of serious injuries to citizens, employees, visitors, and animals.

It’s incumbent upon our city leaders to address risks proactively—rather than taking a reactionary posture.

It is not too late for City Council to include safety measures for children, safety inspections of carriages by engineers, random drug and alcohol screening and automatically following an incident and requiring two drivers per animal-drawn vehicle ensuring one has their eyes on the road ahead, while the other is providing the tour.

We implore City Council to do the right thing.

“Charleston carriage tour rule changes heading to City Council”

By Emily Williams – [email protected]

Published July 29, 2021

New rules for Charleston’s carriage tour businesses are heading to City Council but the group that proposed the idea isn’t pleased.

The Tourism Commission voted this week to approve a pared-down ordinance that includes new requirements related to employee training and other changes.

The proposal won approval Wednesday, but the earlier version stirred up more debate, and commission members voted down a significant portion of the recommendations they reviewed in June.

Commission members then decided to reconvene this month and requested a “clean

draft.”

The Department of Livability and Tourism has been working on the proposal for since last August when the animal rights group Charleston Carriage Horse Advocates submitted new regulations that they wanted to see the city adopt. They included guidelines for where small children can sit on horse- and mule-drawn wagons and random drug tests for carriage drivers.

City staffers reviewed that proposal and drafted its own ordinance that they felt was “legal and practical to enforce,” said department director Dan Riccio.

The revised version that Riccio’s office brought to the commission this week stated that carriage tour operators must:

  • put high-reflectivity markers on the front, back and sides of the carriage

  • implement a “structured annual training program” subject to the city’s approval

  • designate at least one employee per shift trained in first aid for horses to act as a “first responder” in the event of an accident.

Also, the Department of Livability and Tourism would be given the authority to stop carriage tours in the event of an emergency, such as severe weather.

Riccio proposed that idea previously, after he suspended carriage activity in 2019 during a severe thunderstorm warning. Charleston C.A.R.E.S., a coalition of three carriage companies, appealed that call, saying it had “always been to the discretion of the individual carriage companies to decide when and if tours” should he halted and that it should stay that way.

In a statement after this week’s vote, the Carriage Horse Advocates criticized the commission members for scrapping many of its suggestions, saying that they “voted to turn their backs on real common sense safety reforms” and instead sided with the businesses.

Tyler Jones, a spokesman for Charleston C.A.R.E.S., told the commission Wednesday that the shortened version that was up for a vote was a “significant improvement” from the original version, though the group also felt a new ordinance is “unnecessary.”

Brian Turner of the Preservation Society said Wednesday that his group was “encouraged by some of the changes” but was disappointed that “many of the common-sense measures” in the original draft were removed.

As an example, he said that safety rules for children and requiring tour companies to create emergency management plans could help the city “reduce its legal exposure,” Turner said.

The commission voted to send the proposed ordinance to City Council without much public discussion.

“I believe we achieved our goal of just having something cohesive that has chance to be reviewed and discussed and also something that may be a starting point,” chair Michael Saboe said.

He acknowledged that everyone might not be satisfied with the final version. The public will have more opportunities to weigh in when issues goes before City Council.

https://www.postandcourier.com/business/charleston-carriage-tour-rule-changes-heading-to-city-council/article_b7df8f98-f0a3-11eb-9865-8bb055620839.html

“City discusses change in Carriage Horse laws”

By Danielle Seat

Published: Jul. 28, 2021 at 6:13 AM UTC

CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCSC) – The City of Charleston is one step closer to finalizing new laws for the horse carriage industry.

On Wednesday, elected officials in the Tourism Commission are presenting their version of a new draft ordinance pertaining to horse carriage laws.

Charleston Director of Livability and Tourism Dan Riccio says they have condensed the draft down from three versions to one, in hopes that they’ve found a middle ground for everyone invested in the carriage horse industry.

“Historically, with the carriage industry and the carriage advocates, there’s quite a bit of animosity and a lot to debate and a lot of difference in opinions,” Riccio said. “So we’ll have to wait and see at the commission meeting.”

Several weeks back the Tourism Commission reviewed three different proposed ordinances; one from Charleston CARES, another from the Charleston Carriage Horse Advocates, and one drafted by the city.

Over the last few weeks, several items were removed and some were approved. One of the items removed from the ordinance proposed a city issued animal drawn carriage license.

A couple of the items moving forward include a new requirement that all carriages must have a light visible from 500 feet away, and another giving city officials the authority to suspend carriage operations in the event of an emergency.

At Wednesday night’s meeting, the Tourism Commission could decide whether to go ahead with this existing ordinance or head back to the drawing board.

The meeting starts at 5 p.m. Wednesday.

A copy of the draft ordinance is attached at the bottom of the agenda on the city’s website.

Copyright 2021 WCSC. All rights reserved.

https://www.live5news.com/2021/07/28/city-discusses-change-carriage-horse-laws/

“Charleston carriage tour rules up for vote, stoking a familiar controversy”

By Emily Williams [email protected]

Published Tue Jul 27, 2021 7:00 PM EDT

New rules for Charleston carriage tour companies are up for review, stirring a familiar controversy between the industry and an animal-rights group that is calling on the city to further regulate the horse-drawn outings.

On July 28, the city Tourism Commission will see a final and shorter version of an ordinance that it first reviewed last month and whittled down after rejecting some of the recommendations.

First proposed by a group called Charleston Carriage Horse Advocates, the update has been in the works for nearly a year.

The group’s original suggestions included mandatory training and random drug tests for drivers as well as rules about where small children should be seated.

Dan Riccio, the city’s livability and tourism director, said his office reviewed the recommendations for months and wrote an ordinance that it felt was “effective, enforceable and legally proper.”

It then shared the draft with tour operators and the Carriage Horse Advocates.

When the commission met last month, it saw three proposals: The original proposal, the city’s version and a third with suggested changes from a coalition of carriage operators called Charleston C.A.R.E.S.

In the end, many of the changes were rejected, with commission members saying they were either unnecessary or would hinder how the companies operate.

For example, a proposal that would have kept young children from sitting in the rear of a carriage or immediately next to the road was scrapped, with some members noting that carriage companies host school groups.

The recommendations that did make it into the final version included a requirement that tour operators establish a “structured annual training program” for employees. Another specifies that carriage companies designate at least one employee per shift who is trained to perform first aid on horses to be available as a “first responder” in the event of an accident involving possible injuries.

Yet another would give the Department of Livability and Tourism the authority to temporarily stop carriage tours during severe weather or other emergencies.

During the public comment portions of the hearings, the tension between the tour companies and the advocacy group was clear.

Representatives of the Carriage Horse Advocates, like attorney Nicholas Green, repeatedly argued their suggestions were “common sense” measures.

At a June 23 meeting, Tyler Jones, a spokesman for Charleston C.A.R.E.S., said that the companies felt the ordinance was “unnecessary” and “superfluous” but stressed that they weren’t opposed to all sections.

The commission will take up the revised version at a meeting that begins at 5 p.m. Wednesday on Zoom. If approved, the ordinance will go to City Council.

Tension between the carriage tour operators and the animal rights group is not new. In 2018, Charleston Carriage Works, one of the three members of C.A.R.E.S., filed a defamation lawsuit against the Charleston Carriage Horse Advocates and the Charleston Animal Society over social media posts it alleged were false and hurting its business. The company later dropped the complaint.

The Carriage Horse Advocates group has kept track of incidents involving carriage tours since January 2016 in a document on its website.

Their call for more regulation was brought up again after a horse escaped downtown last July while being unhitched from its tour wagon. The animal sustained serious leg injuries and was euthanized.

That incident led to a change in the way horses are secured to and detached from carriages. The Charleston Carriage Horse Advocates described the ordinance update as “window dressing” at the time and requested the city adopt more comprehensive safety rules.

In a statement Tuesday, the group said at least two of its recommendations should be included: that random drug testing be required for drivers and that the city not rely on training guidelines set by the Carriage Operators of North America because those guidelines are not public.

Riccio said his office took the latter into account, and the proposed ordinance states that tour operators must develop their own training programs and submit them to the city for approval.

https://www.postandcourier.com/business/charleston-carriage-tour-rules-up-for-vote-stoking-a-familiar-controversy/article_339db552-ee3c-11eb-b773-df25c20a7ea8.html

What is a SLAPP Lawsuit?

A SLAAP lawsuit is a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

A common feature of SLAPPs is forum shopping, wherein plaintiffs find courts that are more favorable towards the claims to be brought than the court in which the defendant (or sometimes plaintiffs) live.

Why are SLAPPs used? One of the key characteristics of a SLAPP suit is that the lawsuit is not necessarily designed to achieve a favorable verdict. Instead, it is designed to intimidate the target in order to discourage them and others from speaking out on an issue of public importance.

Other widely mentioned elements of a SLAPP are the actual effectiveness at silencing critics, the timing of the suit, inclusion of extra or spurious defendants (such as relatives or hosts of legitimate defendants), inclusion of plaintiffs with no real claim (such as corporations that are affiliated with legitimate plaintiffs), making claims that are very difficult to disprove or rely on no written record, ambiguous or deliberately mangled wording that lets plaintiffs make spurious allegations without fear of perjury, refusal to consider any settlement (or none other than cash), characterization of all offers to settle as insincere, extensive and unnecessary demands for discovery, attempts to identify anonymous or pseudonymous critics, appeals on minor points of law, demands for broad rulings when appeal is accepted on such minor points of law, and attempts to run up defendants, costs even if this clearly costs more to the plaintiffs

“These types of lawsuits clog the court systems and waste not only defendants & money, but taxpayers money as well”. – Public Participation Project

Why South Carolina Needs a Good SLAPP Law

Carolina Tails | June 30th, 2022

By Eric Robison

In late May, the Judiciary Committee of the North Carolina State Assembly approved a legislative bill, which would allow for early dismissal of lawsuits making libel or other claims that are meant to shut down discussion of important public issues.

The bill is now due to be considered by the Assembly as a whole.

If North Carolina adopts the bill into law, it will become the 34th state to pass a so-called “Anti-SLAPP” statute. (The District of Columbia also has such a law; West Virginia has anti-SLAPP provisions via a court decision). These laws are called “anti-SLAPP” statutes because they prevent “SLAPPs,” an acronym for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” These are lawsuits filed to intimidate and stop defendants from discussing matters of public interest, rather than seeking compensation for actual harm.

One such case was filed against a South Carolina defendant in the 1980s. Animal rights activist Shirley McGreal, head of the International Primate Protection League in Summerville, S.C., was sued for $4 million over a letter she wrote to the academic Journal of Medical Primatology protesting a drug company’s plans to use chimpanzees in hepatitis research. Her insurer settled the case against her—over her objection—for $100,000. Later, New York State’s highest court dismissed the 20 case against the remaining defendant, the journal’s editor, on the grounds that the statements were protected by the First Amendment.

Anti-SLAPP statutes create a special motion to dismiss such lawsuits that the defendant shows are meant to stifle discussion of public issues. Claims in such lawsuits often include libel, interference with contractual relations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In addition to protecting concerned citizens and public interest groups, in many states media organizations have successfully used anti-SLAPP statutes to get libel suits stemming from their coverage of public issues dismissed.

Support for such bills ranges across the political spectrum, from the liberal-leaning American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative-leaning American Legislative Exchange Council. In 2020 the Uniform Law Commission produced a model Public Expression Protection Act that individual states can adopt in order to standardize the law across the U.S. The North Carolina bill is based on this model provision, as are anti-SLAPP laws enacted recently in Kentucky and Washington.

Such a bill should also be seriously considered here in South Carolina. Such a bill was introduced in our legislature in 2003, 2009 and 2018, but never progressed past the House Judiciary Committee. The 2018 effort garnered support after a Mount Pleasant developer subpoenaed opponents of his proposed development, seeking their e-mail and other communications with local officials and with each other. But each of these bills died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

South Carolina does have a law imposing sanctions on parties and attorneys for filing frivolous lawsuits, but whether a lawsuit is frivolous is different from whether the true purpose is to stifle speech. Also, such sanctions are rarely imposed.

Protection of speech about public issues is an important First Amendment principle, and we should strengthen that protection by barring frivolous lawsuits that use the threat of litigation—and its inherent expenses and risks—to shut down legitimate discussion of public issues and controversies. South Carolina should bolster its protections for free speech by passing an anti-SLAPP statute in the near future.

This opinion piece was originally published in June 2022 by the South Carolina Press Association. Eric P. Robinson focuses on media and internet law as an associate professor at the USC School of Journalism and Mass Communication and Of Counsel to Fenno Law in Charleston / Mount Pleasant.

https://carolinatails.org/south-carolina-needs-a-good-slapp-law/

Carriage Horse Advocates Responses to Carriage Industry lawsuit:

“The lawsuit was and is a PR stunt, designed to divert your attention and our energies and resources away from our advocacy for the animals.

The reason is simple. The carriage industry does not want to meet the issue of humane treatment of these animals head on, just as they don’t want us shining the light of day on their safety record. ”

— ELLEN HARLEY, CHARLESTON CARRIAGE HORSE ADVOCATES

“This is a misuse of the court system, and it distracts the public from the real issue, which is making the working conditions of the animals more humane.”

— JOE ELMORE, CHARLESTON ANIMAL SOCIETY CEO

Freedom of Speech / Freedom of the Press

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion, and such statements.

A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.

Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

Right to Assemble / Right to Petition

The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual’s current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with First Amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.

Last Updated in June of 2017 by Tala Esmaili.

Commission Wants Carriage Horse Policy Reviewed

PETA Prompts Debate on Carriage Horses

Debate Rages Over Carriage Regulations

In the News

Ellen Harley: Raising Awareness for Charleston’s Carriage Horses

Horses are a passion for Charleston, SC resident Ellen Harley. And for twenty years, she and others who care about horses have tried improve the animal welfare and public safety regulations in place for the operation of horse-drawn carriage tours in the tourist-filled city of Charleston.

https://somebodystories.com/2021/01/19/ellen-harley-charlestons-carriage-horses

https://www.buzzsprout.com/1400710/7367974/

Newspaper with title "Horse carriage incidents prompt new concerns"
Newspaper with title "Carriage horse incidents monitored"

Chicago horse carriage vendors: Animal welfare activists conspired to defame, harm business

On Sept. 11, the owners of the Chicago-based companies Antique Coach & Carriage, Great Lakes Horse & Carriage and Chicago Horse & Carriage banded together to file suit in Cook County Circuit Court against a group of defendants, individually represented by activists Jodie Wiederkehr and Debby Rubenstein, of the Chicago Alliance for Animals.

Feud over Charleston carriage horse tours continues with another defamation lawsuit

An ongoing feud between a Charleston carriage horse company and animal-rights groups continued Tuesday as the advocates being sued again for defamation called the latest litigation “a sham.”

Charleston carriage company drops lawsuit against animal advocates

A Charleston carriage company is dropping its defamation lawsuit against animal-rights groups who claimed the horses were being mistreated.

Charleston Carriage Co. files lawsuit against Charleston Animal Society, horse advocates

Charleston Carriage Horse Company (Charleston Carriage Works) has sued the Charleston Animal Society and horse advocates. The company claims the animal society and advocates spread false information on social media saying the carriage company failed to adhere to city ordinances, were intentionally cruel to horses and disregarded animal safety.

Editorial: Charleston is No. 1 to visit, but what about to live in?

The first year, we were flattered. The second, we were stunned. The third, we blushed. The fourth, we raised an eyebrow. The fifth, we were kind of embarrassed. The sixth, we double-checked the votes. The seventh, we just sighed and rolled our eyes.