We’re used to thinking of courts as the place where truth beats power. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) flip that script: the process becomes the punishment. The aim isn’t to win on the merits; it’s to drain critics of time, money, and courage until they fall silent.
How SLAPPs Work (and Why They’re Effective)
- Asymmetric costs: Claimants with deep pockets can litigate for years; defendants face crippling fees even if they ultimately win.
- Procedural warfare: Forum shopping, stacked claims (defamation, privacy, IP), and expansive discovery designed to intimidate and exhaust.
- Chilling externalities: The point is to warn everyone watching—editors, NGOs, academics—that public-interest speech is expensive.
Call it lawfare by attrition: not a search for truth, but a campaign to make speaking costly.
Case Files: When Power Sues the Public Interest
1) Investigative Journalists Buried in Lawsuits
High-profile reporters in Europe have faced dozens of civil and criminal claims at once, widely described as SLAPPs.
The strategy is simple: multiply costs, outlast the newsroom, and make the story too expensive to pursue.
2) Oligarch & Corporate Suits Against Publishers
Multi-front defamation actions in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions turn a book or exposé into a years-long legal project.
Even settlements can run into millions in legal fees—deterring future investigations.
3) Environmental Advocacy as Target
After major protests, sprawling claims have been filed against NGOs and campaigners. Even when core allegations collapse,
parallel suits can continue, signaling that the cost of watchdog work is the point.
What the Law Is Doing—EU, UK, US
European Union
The EU’s anti-SLAPP framework introduces early dismissal, cost shifting, and security-for-costs in cross-border public-participation cases.
It sets a floor: Member States are encouraged to go further with faster filters and stronger remedies.
United Kingdom
Targeted reforms address SLAPPs linked to economic crime with early dismissal and costs protection, but broader defamation SLAPPs still need comprehensive coverage.
United States
A patchwork of state anti-SLAPP statutes (some strong, some weak) and no federal law creates uncertainty—inviting forum shopping and venue gaming by powerful plaintiffs.
Why SLAPPs Are Constitutionally Corrosive
- Privatized censorship: Civil process becomes a silencing tool without the state lifting a criminal finger.
- Distorted marketplace of ideas: Editors avoid costly stories, creating a de facto “truth tax.”
- Inverted accountability: Those most in need of scrutiny are best positioned to suppress it.
What “Good” Anti-SLAPP Law Looks Like
- Early, decisive filters: Front-end motions to strike manifestly unfounded claims quickly; presumptive full costs for prevailing defendants.
- Security for costs: Where abuse appears likely, require plaintiffs to post security that covers defence costs and potential counter-damages.
- Anti-forum shopping rules: Tie jurisdiction to the defendant’s domicile and intended audience; curb exotic venue selection.
- Real remedies for abuse: Beyond dismissal, allow counter-damages and sanctions for repeated abusers.
- Transparency & support: National registries of SLAPP rulings, rapid-response legal aid, and a one-stop help desk for journalists/NGOs.
- Criminal-defamation rollback: Repeal or radically narrow criminal libel to prevent routing around civil protections.
- US federal floor: A national statute to harmonize standards and prevent venue games in federal court.
Where Legitimate Reputation Protection Ends
Not every defamation claim is a SLAPP. Courts should weigh:
- Merit: Is there a plausible false factual assertion causing harm?
- Purpose: Do scale, venue choice, or multiplicity suggest cost-based deterrence rather than truth-seeking?
- Proportionality: Are remedies (global takedowns, punitive damages) grossly outsized to the alleged harm?
- Public interest: Does the speech concern governance, public health, corporate conduct, or environmental risk? If yes, tilt strongly toward protection.
TL;DR
- SLAPPs weaponize procedure to silence public-interest speech.
- Effective reforms: early dismissal, cost shifting, security for costs, anti-forum shopping, and real remedies for abuse.
- Democracies should protect dissent in practice, not only in principle.
Leave a comment