The court in Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 468, decided that the private newsletter was a public forum. In deciding that the private newsletter was a public forum, the court assumed for purposes of argument that the newsletter did not permit views contrary to those of the small group of homeowners it served. The court nevertheless held: "The Village Voice was a public forum in the sense that it was a vehicle for communicating a message about public matters to a large and interested community. All interested parties had full opportunity to read the articles in the newsletter. Although the Village Voice newsletter may not have offered a 'balanced' view, the Association's other newsletter . . . was the place where Association members with differing viewpoints could express their opposing views. It is in this marketplace of ideas that the Village Voice served a very public communicative purpose promoting open discussion -- a purpose analogous to a public forum. Given the mandate that we broadly construe the anti-SLAPP statute, a single publication does not lose its 'public forum' character merely because it does not provide a balanced point of view. This construction comports with the fundamental purpose underlying the anti-SLAPP statute, which seeks to protect against 'lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of constitutional rights' and 'abuse of the judicial process . . . .' This purpose would not be served if we were to construe the statute to make section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3) inapplicable to all newspapers, magazines, and other public media merely because the publication is arguably 'one-sided.' This is particularly true because section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3) requires not only that the statement be made in a public forum, but also that it concern an issue of public interest. Further, because section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4) includes conduct in furtherance of free speech rights, regardless whether that conduct occurs in a place where ideas are freely exchanged, it would be anomalous to interpret section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3) as imposing that requirement merely because the challenged speech is an oral or written statement." (Id. at pp. 476-477.) In Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club (2000) the court held statements published in a homeowners association newsletter concerning the manner in which the organization would be managed pertained to issues of public interest within the homeowners' community (a group of more than 3,000 individuals). Indeed, the court emphasized the statements at issue in that case were made in connection with board elections and recall campaigns and quoted from cases holding "'"public discussion about the qualifications of those who hold or who wish to hold positions of public trust presents the strongest possible case for applications of the safeguards afforded by the First Amendment."'" (Ibid.)