In Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 855, the plaintiff sued the publisher of the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, alleging the newspaper printed defamatory articles. (Lafayette Morehouse, supra, 37 Cal. App. 4th at p. 863.) The court found the challenged statements fell within section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2) because they concerned a matter that was pending before a legislative body. (37 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 862-863.) The court thus declined to reach the defendant publisher's alternate argument that the newspaper constituted a "public forum" under section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3). (37 Cal. App. 4th at p. 863, fn. 5.) In dicta, however, the court stated it found the publisher's argument "dubious" because "newspaper editors or publishers customarily retain the final authority on what their newspapers will publish in letters to the editor, editorial pages, and even news articles, resulting at best in a controlled forum not an uninhibited 'public forum.' " (Ibid.) In Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) a SLAPP plaintiff challenged section 425.16 as violative of its right to equal protection on the ground the statute infringed on its ability to gain access to the judicial system. (Lafayette, supra, 37 Cal. App. 4th at p. 865.) In other words, according to the plaintiff, the statute chilled its own constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances. However, the Court concluded, section 425.16 does not bar a plaintiff's complaints that arise from another person's exercise of his or her free speech or petition rights, "but only provides a mechanism through which such plaintiff's complaints can be evaluated at an early stage of the litigation process." (Lafayette, supra, at p. 865.)