I recently came across an interesting article in The New York Times. The article was about a phenomenon known as SLAPP: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Since the Internet has made SLAPP lawsuits more common, I thought I’d discuss them and their implications in this week’s Pleading Ignorance.
At their heart, SLAPP lawsuits are designed to intimidate and censor critics. The idea is that a company, say MegaCo, wants to stop critics from saying negative things publicly about the company. MegaCo would file lawsuits against those individuals who speak out against the company in an attempt to silence them.
Whether or not MegaCo would win the lawsuit is of no importance. Faced with mounting legal bills and the strain of a lawsuit, the defendant—often an individual with no legal team or financial resources to fall back on—abandons the criticism. Whether or not the criticism is valid is also of no importance. The important thing is that MegaCo has prevented someone from criticizing the company and has probably discouraged other critics from coming forward.
In many cases, MegaCo and the defendant won’t even see the inside of a courtroom. Usually, companies like MegaCo send a strongly-worded warning letter from their legal department, threatening legal action if the criticism isn’t taken back. Because the plaintiff is usually an individual who has no desire to face a lawsuit, the criticism is quickly abandoned.
Critics of SLAPP lawsuits say they violate free speech and amount to censorships. Some states, including California, have statutory protections against SLAPPs.
What is so dangerous about these lawsuits is they are not intended to win on their merits. They are only intended to stop people from using their right to freedom of speech by scaring them into silence. The difference between a SLAPP lawsuit and a legitimate defamation Read the rest of this entry »