A defamation lawsuit stemming from the 2021 City of Boulder election has been set for a five-day trial on May 12, 2025, marking a critical point in a protracted court battle that raises significant questions about political speech and campaign tactics.
In 2021, Steve Rosenblum, a former candidate for the Boulder City Council, filed a lawsuit alleging that members of the political group Boulder Progressives conspired to spread defamatory statements about him. The allegations center on the creation of an X (formerly Twitter) account in Rosenblum’s name, which included a link to a blog called Safer Leaks that featured some statements falsely attributed to Rosenblum.
The lawsuit was paused for about two years after the defendants appealed under a state law designed to dismiss lawsuits intended to suppress free speech, known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits. In August 2023, the appeals court issued a mixed ruling, dismissing the claims against all defendants associated with the Boulder Progressives except Eric Budd, a local political organizer. The Colorado Supreme Court then denied a petition by Budd to hear the case, allowing the remaining claims to proceed to trial.
At stake is not only Rosenblum’s quest for damages and an acknowledgment of harm but also the broader implications for how political speech and campaign tactics are protected under the First Amendment in Colorado.
A trial is also expected to be politically charged, as the case features key players in local city politics. Rosenblum, who is no longer a registered voter in Boulder County, ran on a platform supported by residents advocating for the city to spend more money on policing and clearing encampments of homeless people, among other causes. Many organizers who supported him have opposed the Boulder Progressives.
During a trial, Rosenblum would have to persuade a jury that Budd’s creation of a Twitter account linking to a blog critical of him amounted to misappropriation and defamation. As part of this defamation lawsuit, Rosenblum also would have to show that those actions caused him harm. Rosenblum lost his race for a seat on the Boulder City Council by fewer than 2,000 votes.
“We’re looking forward to it going to trial,” Stan Garnett, the former Boulder County district attorney who is representing Rosenblum, told Boulder Reporting Lab. “Harm to reputation, impact on his family, etc. We’ll lay all that out as we continue to develop the facts.”
In the coming months, both sides can request depositions from people connected to the case and subpoena for information. The anonymous author of the Safer Leaks blog remains unidentified in the lawsuit.
Budd is expected to argue that his actions were protected under the First Amendment as a form of political activism. In previously seeking to have the case tossed out, Budd’s lawyers also argued that he is not liable under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally protects internet users from being treated as the publisher of information provided by another person. In other words, he cannot be held liable for Safer Leaks blog content despite linking to it, they argued.
In deciding not to dismiss the case, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that Rosenblum established a reasonable probability of success at trial for his misappropriation and defamation claims against Budd. This decision was largely based on Budd’s creation of the Twitter account in Rosenblum’s name, combined with posting a link to the Safer Leaks blog. The judges wrote this could lead people to believe that Rosenblum created the account and endorsed the blog’s contents.
Budd’s lawyer, John Culver, a civil rights lawyer with the Lakewood-based firm Benezra and Culver, has argued in legal filings that “no reasonable person” would read the Safer Leaks blog and believe the content was endorsed by Rosenblum. The blog “harshly criticized Rosenblum’s character and fitness for office, even going as far as to liken Rosenblum to white supremacists,” a filing states.
Budd declined to comment for this story. Culver did not respond to an emailed request for a comment.
Despite a looming trial, a settlement is still possible. Both parties have said they remain open to reaching an agreement.