Strategic lawsuit against public participation

Last updated

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (also known as SLAPP suits or intimidation lawsuits), [1] or strategic litigation against public participation, [2] are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. [3]

Contents

In a typical SLAPP, the plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate. [4] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. SLAPPs bring about freedom of speech concerns due to their chilling effect and are often difficult to filter out and penalize because the plaintiffs attempt to obfuscate their intent to censor, intimidate, or silence their critics.

To protect freedom of speech, some jurisdictions have passed anti-SLAPP laws (often called SLAPP-back laws). These laws often function by allowing a defendant to file a motion to strike or dismiss on the grounds that the case involves protected speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then bears the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail. If the plaintiffs fail to meet their burden their claim is dismissed and the plaintiffs may be required to pay a penalty for bringing the case.

Anti-SLAPP laws sometimes come under criticism from those who believe that there should not be barriers to the right to petition for those who sincerely believe they have been wronged, regardless of ulterior motives. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid, abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims. Anti-SLAPP laws are generally considered to have a favorable effect, and many lawyers have fought to enact stronger laws protecting against SLAPPs. [5] [ page needed ]

Characteristics

SLAPP is a form of strategic litigation or impact litigation. SLAPPs take various forms. The most common used to be a civil suit for defamation, which in the English common law tradition was a tort. The common law of libel dates to the early 17th century and, unlike most English law, is reverse onus, meaning that once someone alleges a statement is libelous, the burden is on the defendant to prove that it is not. In England and Wales, the Defamation Act 2013 removed most of the uses of defamation as a SLAPP by requiring the proof of special damage. Various abuses of this law including political libel (criticism of the political actions or views of others) have ceased to exist in most places, but persist in some jurisdictions (notably British Columbia and Ontario) where political views can be held as defamatory.

A common feature of SLAPPs is forum shopping, wherein plaintiffs find courts that are more favourable towards the claims to be brought than the court in which the defendant (or sometimes plaintiffs) live. [6]

Other widely mentioned elements of a SLAPP are the actual effectiveness at silencing critics, the timing of the suit, inclusion of extra or spurious defendants (such as relatives or hosts of legitimate defendants), inclusion of plaintiffs with no real claim (such as corporations that are affiliated with legitimate plaintiffs), making claims that are very difficult to disprove or rely on no written record, ambiguous or deliberately mangled wording that lets plaintiffs make spurious allegations without fear of perjury, refusal to consider any settlement (or none other than cash), characterization of all offers to settle as insincere, extensive and unnecessary demands for discovery, attempts to identify anonymous or pseudonymous critics, appeals on minor points of law, and demands for broad rulings when appeal is accepted on such minor points of law. In some instances it is clear that plaintiffs are attempting to drain defendants of their financial resources by making the lawsuit as costly as possible, [7] and in these cases the plaintiff's motive may not be legal victory, but merely to waste the defendant's time and money. [8]

History

The acronym was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring. [9] The term was originally defined as "a lawsuit involving communications made to influence a governmental action or outcome, which resulted in a civil complaint or counterclaim filed against nongovernment individuals or organizations on a substantive issue of some public interest or social significance." The concept's originators later dropped the notion that government contact had to be about a public issue to be protected by the right to petition the government, as provided in the First Amendment. It has since been defined less broadly by some states, and more broadly in one state (California) where it includes suits about speech on any public issue. [10]

The original conceptualization proffered by Canan and Pring emphasized the right to petition as protected in the United States under the US Constitution's specific protection in the First Amendment's fifth clause. It is still definitional: SLAPPs are civil lawsuits filed against those who have communicated to government officialdom (in its entire constitutional apparatus). The right to petition, granted by Edgar the Peaceful, King of England in the 10th century, antedates Magna Carta in terms of its significance in the development of democratic institutions. As currently conceived, the right claims that democracy cannot properly function in the presence of barriers between the governed and the governing. [11] [12]

New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella said in reference to SLAPPs: "Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined." [13] In the United States a number of jurisdictions have made such suits illegal, however the conditions that a defendant must satisfy for a dismissal of the suit vary from state to state. In some states, such as California, defendants may be entitled to counter-sue SLAPP plaintiffs under some circumstances. [14] This is commonly referred to as SLAPPback. [15]

Jurisdictional variations

Australia

In the Australian Capital Territory, the Protection of Public Participation Act 2008 (ACT) protects conduct intended to influence public opinion or promote or further action in relation to an issue of public interest. A party starting or maintaining a proceeding against a defendant for an improper purpose may be ordered to pay a financial penalty to the Territory. [16]

Canada

Some political libel and forum shopping incidents, both relatively uncommon in Canada, have been called SLAPPs, because such suits load defendants with costs of responding in unfamiliar jurisdictions or at times (typically elections) when they are extremely busy and short of funds. Both types of suit are unusual in Canada, so there is little academic concern or examination of whether political subject matter or remote forums are a clear indicator of SLAPP. [ citation needed ]

Canada's three most populous provinces (Quebec, British Columbia, and Ontario) have enacted anti-SLAPP legislation.

British Columbia

One of the first cases in Canada to be explicitly ruled a SLAPP was Fraser v. Saanich (see [1999] B.C.J. No. 3100 (B.C. S.C.)) (QL), where the British Columbia Supreme Court struck out the claim of a hospital director against the District of Saanich, holding that it was a meritless action designed to silence or intimidate the residents who were opposed to the plaintiff's plan to redevelop the hospital facilities.

Following the decision in Fraser v. Saanich, the Protection of Public Participation Act (PPPA) went into effect in British Columbia in April 2001. The legislation was repealed in August 2001. There was extensive debate on its merits and the necessity of having hard criteria for judges and whether this tended to reduce or increase process abuse. The debate was largely formed by the first case to discuss and apply the PPPA, Home Equity Development v. Crow. [17] The defendants' application to dismiss the action against them was dismissed. The defendants failed to meet the burden of proof required by the PPPA, that the plaintiffs had no reasonable prospect of success. While it was not the subject of the case, some felt that the plaintiffs did not bring their action for an improper purpose, and the suit did not inhibit the defendants in their public criticism of the particular project, and that the Act was, therefore, ineffective in this case.

Since the repeal, BC activists especially the BCCLA have argued repeatedly for a broad understanding of SLAPP and a broad interpretation of judicial powers especially in intervener applications in BC and other common law jurisdictions and when arguing for new legislation to prevent SLAPPs. The activist literature contains extensive research on particular cases and criteria. The West Coast Environmental Law organization agrees and generally considers BC to lag other jurisdictions. [18]

In March 2019, the legislature voted unanimously to pass another anti-SLAPP bill, the Protection of Public Participation Act. [19]

Nova Scotia

A private member's bill introduced in 2001 by Graham Steele (NDP, Halifax Fairview) proposed a "Protection of Public Participation Act" to dismiss proceedings or claims brought or maintained for an improper purpose, awarding punitive or exemplary damages (effectively, a "SLAPP back") and protection from liability for communication or conduct which constitutes public participation. The bill did not progress beyond first reading. [20]

Ontario

In Ontario, the decision in Daishowa v. Friends of the Lubicon [1996] O.J. No. 3855 Ont. Ct. Gen. Div. (QL) was instructive on SLAPPs. A motion brought by the corporate plaintiff Daishowa to impose conditions on the defendant Friends of the Lubicon Indian Band that they would not represent Daishowa's action as a SLAPP was dismissed.

By 2010, the Ontario Attorney-General had issued a major report which identified SLAPP as a major problem [21] but initially little to nothing was done. [22]

In June 2013, the Attorney General introduced legislation to implement the recommendations of the report. The bill proposed a mechanism for an order to dismiss strategic lawsuits which attack free expression on matters of public interest, with full costs (but not punitive damages) and on a relatively short timeframe, if the underlying claims had no reasonable prospect of success. [23]

The bill enjoyed support from a wide range of groups including municipalities, [24] the Canadian Environmental Law Association, EcoJustice, Environmental Defence, [25] Ontario Clean Air Alliance, Ontario Nature, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, [26] Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, [27] Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, The Council of Canadians, CPAWS Wildlands League, Sierra Club Ontario, Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario [28] and Greenpeace Canada. [29]

The legislation was re-introduced following the 2014 Ontario election as Bill 52, and on 3 November 2015, Ontario enacted it as the Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015. [30]

Quebec

Québec's then Justice Minister, Jacques Dupuis, proposed an anti-SLAPP bill on 13 June 2008. [31] The bill was adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec on 3 June 2009. Quebec's amended Code of Civil Procedure was the first anti-SLAPP mechanism in force in Canada.

Prior to Ontario enacting its own Anti-SLAPP law the bill was invoked there (and then Supreme Court of Canada docket 33819). In the case of Les Éditions Écosociété Inc., Alain Deneault, Delphine Abadie and William Sacher vs. Banro Inc., in which the publisher Écosociété pleaded (supported by the BCCLA [32] ) that it should not face Ontario liability for a publication in Quebec, as the suit was a SLAPP and the Quebec law explicitly provided to dismiss these. The court denied the request, ruling it had jurisdiction. [33] A separate 2011 decision in Quebec Superior Court had ruled that Barrick Gold had to pay $143,000 to the book's three authors and publisher, Les Éditions Écosociété Inc., to prepare their defence in a "seemingly abusive" strategic lawsuit against public participation. [34] Despite the Québec ruling, a book Noir Canada documenting the relationship between Canadian mining corporations, armed conflict and political actors in Africa was never published as part of a settlement which, according to the authors, was only made for the sole purpose of resolving the three-and-a-half-year legal battle.

The Quebec law is substantially different in structure than that of California [35] or other jurisdictions, however, as Quebec's Constitution generally subordinates itself to international law, and as such the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights applies. That treaty only permits liability for arbitrary and unlawful speech. The ICCPR has also been cited, in the BC case Crookes v. Newton, as the standard for balancing free speech versus reputation rights. The Supreme Court of Canada in October 2011, ruling in that case, neither reiterated nor rescinded that standard.

European Union

On 25 November 2020, the European Parliament passed a resolution expressed "its continued deep concern about the state of media freedom within the EU in the context of the abuses and attacks still being perpetrated against journalists and media workers in some Member States because of their work" and called on the European Commission to "establish minimum standards against SLAPP practices across the EU". In 2021 the European Union was considering adopting an anti-SLAPP directive to protect the freedom of speech of European citizens. [36]

United States

Thirty-three states, the District of Columbia, and Guam have enacted statutory protections against SLAPPs. [37] These states are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, [38] Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, [39] Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, [40] Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, [41] [42] Utah, Vermont, Virginia, [43] and Washington. In West Virginia, the courts have adopted protections against SLAPPs. These laws vary dramatically in scope and level of protection and the remaining states lack specific protections.

Federal law and federal courts

In December 2009, Rep. Steve Cohen (D–Tennessee) introduced the Citizen Participation Act in the U.S. House. [44]

In 2010 Obama signed the SPEECH Act on the closely related issue of libel tourism. [45] Like many state anti-SLAPP laws, H.R. 4364 would allow the defendant of a SLAPP to have the suit quickly dismissed and to recover fees and costs.

In 2015 the SPEAK FREE Act of 2015 was introduced.

The extent to which state laws apply in federal courts is unclear, and the circuits are split on the question. The First, [46] Fifth, [47] and Ninth [48] circuits have allowed litigants from Maine, Louisiana, and California, respectively, to use their state's special motion in federal district courts in diversity actions. The D.C. Circuit has held the reverse for D.C. litigants. [49]

Forum shopping

It has been argued that the lack of uniform protection against SLAPPs has encouraged forum shopping; proponents of federal legislation have argued that the uncertainty about one's level of protection has likely magnified the chilling effect of SLAPPs. [50]

California

California has a unique variant of anti-SLAPP legislation. In 1992 California enacted Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, a statute intended to frustrate SLAPPs by providing a quick and inexpensive defense. [10] It provides for a special motion that a defendant can file at the outset of a lawsuit to strike a complaint when it arises from conduct that falls within the rights of petition or free speech. The statute expressly applies to any writing or speech made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, but there is no requirement that the writing or speech be promulgated directly to the official body. It also applies to speech in a public forum about an issue of public interest and to any other petition or speech conduct about an issue of public interest.

Washington State

In May 2015, the Washington Supreme Court struck down the state's 2010 anti-SLAPP statute. [51] However, in 2021, a new anti-SLAPP law was enacted. [52]

Balancing the right of access to the courts

The SLAPP penalty stands as a barrier to access to the courts by providing an early penalty to claimants who seek judicial redress. In recent years, the courts in some states have recognized that enforcement of SLAPP legislation must recognize and balance the constitutional rights of both litigants. It has been said:

Since Magna Carta, the world has recognized the importance of justice in a free society. "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice." (Magna Carta, 1215.) This nation's founding fathers knew people would never consent to be governed and surrender their right to decide disputes by force, unless government offered a just forum for resolving those disputes. [53]

The right to bring grievances to the courts, in good faith, is protected by state and federal constitutions in a variety of ways. In most states, the right to trial by jury in civil cases is recognized. The right to cross-examine witnesses is considered fundamental to the American judicial system. Moreover, the first amendment protects the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The "right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition." [54] Because "the right to petition is 'among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights', ... the right of access to the courts shares this 'preferred place' in [the United States'] hierarchy of constitutional freedoms and values." [55] This balancing question is resolved differently in different states, often with substantial difficulty. [56] [57] [58] [59]

In Palazzo v. Alves, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island stated:

By the nature of their subject matter, anti-SLAPP statutes require meticulous drafting. On the one hand, it is desirable to seek to shield citizens from improper intimidation when exercising their constitutional right to be heard with respect to issues of public concern. On the other hand, it is important that such statutes be limited in scope lest the constitutional right of access to the courts (whether by private figures, public figures, or public officials) be improperly thwarted. There is a genuine double-edged challenge to those who legislate in this area. [60]

The most challenging balancing problem arises in application to SLAPP claims which do not sound (give rise to a claim) in tort. The common law and constitutional law have developed in the United States to create a high substantive burden to tort and tort-like claims which seek redress for public speech, especially public speech which addresses matters of public concern. The common law in many states requires the pleader to state accurately the content of libelous words. Constitutional law has provided substantive protection which bars recovery against a first amendment defense except upon clear and convincing evidence that there has been deliberate or reckless falsehood. For this reason, ferreting out the bad faith SLAPP claim at an early stage of litigation should be accomplished with relative ease. Extension of the SLAPP penalties to factually complex cases, where the substantive standard of proof at common law is lower presents special challenges.

Notable SLAPPs

Australia

Belgium

Belgian law recognizes the concept of "tergend geding" (bullying litigation), any litigation of which the underlying aim is to cause discomfort to the opposing party, and hence increase the possibility of its redrawal from the lawsuit. Qualification of litigation as such by a judge can lead to its dismissal.

Brazil

Canada

Estonia

In 2016, the real-estate investment company Pro Kapital Ltd sued urbanist Teele Pehk who expressed her opinion about the company's development plans in the Kalasadam area of Tallinn, Estonia. The accusations were based on an interview given for the article "The battle for the Estonian coastline", published by the monthly newspaper The Baltic Times . Initially, instead of clarifying the questionable quotes in the article with the Baltic Times' editors, Pro Kapital sent a legal demand to Pehk demanding that she publish a pre-written explanation and pay €500 to cover their legal advice expenses. Pehk provided proof to the lawyer that she had not lied to the journalist of The Baltic Times, and the newspaper published a clarification online that Pehk's words were misinterpreted. Few months later Pro Kapital sued Pehk for damaging their reputation by spreading lies about the detailed plan of the Kalasadam area. Teele Pehk had been involved with the detailed plan of Kalasadam since 2011, as a member of the neighbourhood association Telliskivi selts and caretaker of the Kalarand beach, situated on the edge of the Kalasadam area.

Half a year into the court case, Pro Kapital began negotiations and settled with a compromise before the court hearing. Pro Kapital paid for Pehk's legal costs and both parties agreed not to disparage each other in the future. Teele Pehk is still active in Tallinn urban development and continues to spread the word about SLAPP suits.

This case took place at the end of the 12-year process of planning the Kalasadam area, which over the years had witnessed exceptionally high public interest regarding the planned residential development and most importantly, the public use of the seaside and the beach. The planning system in Estonia allows anyone to express their opinion, present suggestions or objections to any detailed plan. Many Estonian civic organisations were raising concerned voices about the case and the Chancellor for Justice of Estonia condemned that practice many times in public appearances.

France

Germany

In September 2017, a naturopath in Arizona named Colleen Huber filed a defamation lawsuit, preceded by two cease and desist letters, against Britt Marie Hermes, a naturopathy whistleblower. The lawsuit was filed for Hermes' blog post criticizing Huber for using naturopathic remedies to treat cancer and speculating that Hermes' name was being used without her permission in several registered domain names owned by Huber. [84] [85] The lawsuit was filed in Kiel, Germany where Hermes was residing to pursue her PhD in evolutionary genomics. Jann Bellamy of Science-Based Medicine speculates that this is "due to good old forum shopping for a more plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction" as there are no protections against SLAPP lawsuits in Germany. [84] Britt Hermes is a notable scientific skeptic and the organization Australian Skeptics set up a fund to help with legal costs on the case. In an interview at CSICon 2019, Britt Hermes told Susan Gerbic that she had won her case on 24 May 2019. According to Britt Hermes, "the court ruled that my post is protected speech under Article 5 (1) of the German constitution". [86]

Greece

In 2022, in the wake of revelations that Greece's National Intelligence Service (Greece) was spying on the leader of PASOK, the third largest party, Nikos Androulakis, the executive director of NIS, Grigoris Kontoleon, and the Secretary General to prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Grigoris Dimitriadis (also a close relative of Kyriakos Mitsotakis) resigned from office. Grigoris Dimitriadis filed lawsuits against two journalists who had helped uncover the scandal, Thodoris Chondrogiannos and Nikolas Leontopoulos, demanding 150,000 euros as damages for false publications and the removal of those publications, but also against Thanassis Koukakis, a journalist who during 2021 was spied upon because of his investigations on Greek businessmen.

India

In 2020, Karan Bajaj, the founder of WhiteHat Jr., now owned by Byju's, filed a 2.6 million dollar lawsuit against Pradeep Poonia, an engineer who publicly accused the company of having a toxic work environment and unethical business practices. [87] [88] [89] The Delhi High Court issued an interim order requiring Poonia to remove certain tweets from his account. [87] In 2021, Bajaj rescinded the lawsuit. [87]

Israel

During 2016, Amir Bramly, who at the time was being investigated and subsequently indicted for an alleged Ponzi scheme, [90] sued for libel Tomer Ganon, a Calcalist reporter, privately for ₪1 million in damages, due to a news item linking him to Bar Refaeli. [91] [92] In addition Bramly sued Channel-2 News and its reporters and managers for ₪5 million in damages due to an alleged libel in an in-depth TV news item and interview with the court appointed liquidator of his companies, [93] and has threatened to sue additional bodies. [94] The sued individuals and bodies have claimed that these are SLAPP actions. [95] [96]

Japan

In 2006, Oricon Inc., Japan's music chart provider, sued freelance journalist Hiro Ugaya due to his suggesting in an article for business and culture magazine Cyzo  [ ja ] that the company was fiddling its statistics to benefit certain management companies and labels, specifically Johnny and Associates. The company sought ¥50 million and apology from him. [97] He found allies in the magazine's editor-in-chief Tadashi Ibi, [97] lawyer Kentaro Shirosaki, [97] and Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF). [98]

He was found guilty in 2008 by the Tokyo District Court and ordered to pay one million yen, but he appealed and won. Oricon did not appeal later. His 33-month struggle against Oricon and his research on SLAPPs through his self-expense trip in the United States was featured on the TBS program JNN Reportage, titled as "Legal Intimidation Against Free Speech: What is SLAPP?" [99]

RSF expressed its support to the journalist and was relieved on the abandonment of the suit. [98]

Norway

On 17 May 2018, a non-profit project rettspraksis.no challenged a perceived monopoly on the publication of pre-2009 Supreme Court of Norway decisions by publishing a large back catalogue of historical decisions. To prevent publication, the government-established Lovdata foundation demanded an immediate injunction against two project volunteers, Håkon Wium Lie and Fredrik Ljone, that the website be shut down. The foundation claimed that rettspraksis.no had "developed or used software to systematically download rulings from Lovdatas online services" [100] in order to publish the rulings in violation of Lovdata's rights according to the Norwegian Copyright Act section 43, the Database Rights Section. The District Court granted the injunction without a hearing based on finding that the volunteer actions was in violation of section 43, and that the publication on rettspraksis.no would enable other commercial actors to exploit the material in violation of Lovdata's rights even if the project itself did not. [101] A postjudgement hearing on 30 and 31 August 2018 resulted in a reduction in the injunction's effects, most significantly that the Database Rights Section did not extend to rulings published before 2005. Appeals from Ljone and Wium Lie to the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court were denied. [102]

Serbia

In the late 1990s, many SLAPP cases against independent and pro-opposition media ensued after adoption of the infamous media law, proposed by then minister of information, Aleksandar Vučić. [103] The main characteristic of these cases were quick trials and extremely high fines, most of which were unaffordable for journalists and their media houses. [103] While SLAPP cases became, more or less, rare after the Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević, they gradually reappeared in the late 2010s, and especially in the early 2020s, during SNS-led cabinets. [103] Notably, Aleksandar Vučić is current president of Serbia, the most influential figure of the regime, and he is often accused of suppression of media freedoms. [104]

Thailand

On March 6, 2024, Chutima Sidasathian won a SLAPP suit against Thanonthorn Kaveekitrattana, after facing defamation charges for a 2022 post exposing misappropriation of funds from the Village Fund program. [105] [106]

United Kingdom

A 2021 libel action brought against the publisher HarperCollins and the author and journalist Catherine Belton over the latter's book Putin's People was described by former Conservative cabinet minister David Davis as a SLAPP. [107] Despite winning the legal case brought by several Russian oligarchs, including Roman Abramovich, Belton was left facing legal costs of £1.5 million. [107] UK Government justice minister James Cartlidge said, "the Ministry of Justice is monitoring SLAPP threats against journalists and announced that the UK will be a member of the Council of Europe’s inaugural working group on SLAPPs with an anti-SLAPP draft recommendation for member states due in December 2023. I will be giving SLAPPs in UK courts urgent consideration. I want to make it clear that the Government are committed to a robust defence of transparency and freedom of speech. We will not tolerate anything that risks tarnishing the integrity of our judicial and legal profession". [107]

Ministers later said that they would reform the legal system to prevent "intimidation lawsuits"; amendments to this effect were proposed for an anti-corruption economic crime bill before Parliament in March 2022. [108]

In January 2023 The Times reported that "Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi ‘told solicitors to send Slapp letter'" to Dan Neidle over claims about Zahawi's tax affairs. [109]

United States

External videos
Last Week Tonight.svg
Nuvola apps kaboodle.svg SLAPP Suits: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) on YouTube

See also

Case studies

Related Research Articles

A class action lawsuit, also known as a class suit, class-action, representative action, or representative action, is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member or members of that group. The class action originated in the United States and is still predominantly an American phenomenon, but Canada, as well as several European countries with civil law, have made changes in recent years to allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf of consumers.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the defendant. A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally instituting and pursuing a legal action that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food libel laws</span> Laws passed in some US states to make it easier for food producers to sue their critics for libel

Food libel laws, also known as food disparagement laws and informally as veggie libel laws, are laws passed in thirteen U.S. states that make it easier for food producers to sue their critics for libel. These thirteen states are the following: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas. Many of the food-disparagement laws establish a lower standard for civil liability and allow for punitive damages and attorney's fees for plaintiffs alone, regardless of the case's outcome.

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court establishing the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals. The Court held that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, states are free to establish their own standards of liability for defamatory statements made about private individuals. However, the Court also ruled that if the state standard is lower than actual malice, the standard applying to public figures, then only actual damages may be awarded.

Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006), was a California Supreme Court case concerning online defamation. The case resolved a defamation claim brought by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal and several others. Barrett and others alleged that the defendants had republished libelous information about them on the internet. In a unanimous decision, the court held that Rosenthal was a "user of interactive computer services" and therefore immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Spamigation is mass litigation conducted to intimidate large numbers of people. The term was coined in 2006 by Brad Templeton of the Electronic Frontier Foundation to explain the tactics of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which files large numbers of lawsuits against individuals for file sharing, and DirecTV, which once filed large numbers of lawsuits against users of smart cards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort reform</span> Legal reforms aimed at reducing tort litigation

Tort reform consists of changes in the civil justice system in common law countries that aim to reduce the ability of plaintiffs to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive. Such changes are generally justified under the grounds that litigation is an inefficient means to compensate plaintiffs; that tort law permits frivolous or otherwise undesirable litigation to crowd the court system; or that the fear of litigation can serve to curtail innovation, raise the cost of consumer goods or insurance premiums for suppliers of services, and increase legal costs for businesses. Tort reform has primarily been prominent in common law jurisdictions, where criticism of judge-made rules regarding tort actions manifests in calls for statutory reform by the legislature.

The Ritalin class-action lawsuits were a series of federal lawsuits in 2000, filed in five separate US states. All five lawsuits were dismissed by the end of 2002. The lawsuits alleged that the makers of methylphenidate and the American Psychiatric Association had conspired to invent and promote the disorder ADHD to create a highly profitable market for the drug. The lawsuit also alleged that CHADD deliberately attempted to increase the supply of Ritalin and ease restrictions on the supply of Ritalin to help increase profits for Novartis.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian defamation law</span> Commonwealth jurisdictions

Canadian defamation law refers to defamation law as it stands in both common law and civil law jurisdictions in Canada. As with most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marc Randazza</span> American First Amendment attorney

Marc J. Randazza is an American First Amendment attorney and a legal commentator on InfoWars.

Astley v Verdun, 2011 ONSC 3651, is a leading defamation decision released by Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The case was publicized for the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff, and the permanent injunction ordered against the defendant.

<i>Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox</i> 2011 US legal case concerning online defamation

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon concerning online defamation. Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Crystal Cox for maintaining several blogs that accused Obsidian and Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. The court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, but found one single post to be more factual in its assertions and therefore defamatory. For that post, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. This case is notable for the court's ruling that Cox, as an internet blogger, was not a journalist and was thus not protected by Oregon's media shield laws, although the court later clarified that its ruling did not categorically exclude blogs from being considered media and indicated that its decision was based in part upon Cox offering to remove negative posts for a $2,500 fee. In January 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to the bankruptcy trustee. It also ordered a new trial on the blog post at issue.

Taus v. Loftus, 151 P.3d 1185 was a Supreme Court of California case in which the court held that academic researchers' publication of information relating to a study by another researcher was newsworthy and subject to protection under the state's anti-SLAPP act. The court noted that the defendants had not disclosed the plaintiff's name and that Nicole Taus had disclosed it herself when she filed the case under her own name. The court did find that Taus had alleged a prima facie case that Loftus had misrepresented herself during the investigation and that this one count may proceed to trial.

In late September 2019, Stones Gambling Hall, located in Citrus Heights, near Sacramento, California, came to prominence due to a cheating scandal that became known as Postlegate. Mike Postle was publicly accused of cheating in poker games he participated in during livestream events hosted at Stones Gambling Hall. "Stones Live" livestream poker games utilized playing cards with embedded RFID sensors that scanned the playing cards and transmitted identifying information into the livestream's technical control room and to play-by-play announcers and color commentators; casino management and livestream supervisors also had access to real-time identifying information of otherwise unknown, facedown, cards. The initial public accusation of Postle's alleged cheating was made by poker color commentator, interviewer, and recreational player Veronica Brill, whose day job of analytic analysis for the medical industry was instrumental in her being emboldened to accuse Postle of cheating. Brill's allegations were reported by Scott Van Pelt on ESPN's SportsCenter during its October 3, 2019, broadcast. Initially, industry, local, and national media closely followed the evolving story, but interest waned after criminal charges were not brought by law enforcement, and as civil lawsuits were adjudicated, settled, or dismissed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SLAPP Suits</span> Segment from the American television program "Last Week Tonight"

"SLAPP Suits" is a segment of HBO's news-satire television series Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, focusing on strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). It first aired on November 10, 2019, as part of the twenty-ninth episode of the series's sixth season. The episode marked British-American comedian and host John Oliver's response to winning a SLAPP defamation lawsuit against him initiated by American mining businessman Robert E. Murray. The lawsuit began in 2017, after Oliver heavily criticized Murray and his company, Murray Energy, in a segment concerning the coal-mining industry in the United States. Murray claimed in his lawsuit that Oliver had carried out a character assassination against him, but the case was dismissed in under a year, and an appeal by Murray Energy was unsuccessful. During the lawsuit, the American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief that was widely covered due to its sarcastic humor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special motion to strike</span> Legal motion intended to stop SLAPP lawsuits

The special motion to strike is a motion authorized by the California Code of Civil Procedure intended to stop strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). They were created in 1992 with the purpose of encouraging participation in matters of public significance. The motion allows a litigant to strike a complaint when it arises from conduct in furtherance of the moving party's rights to petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. If the moving party prevails, they are entitled to attorney's fees by right. The motion is codified in section 425.16 of the Code. More than 300 published court opinions have interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law. Because the right to file a special motion to strike is substantive immunity to suit, rather than a merely procedural right, federal courts apply the law to state law claims they hear under diversity jurisdiction.

<i>Mineral Sands Resources v Reddell</i> South African legal case

Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Reddell and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which affirmed a common law defence against strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) lawsuits. It was heard on 17 February 2022 and decided on 14 November 2022 in a unanimous judgment written by Justice Steven Majiedt. The Constitutional Court ruled that it is proper to identify and dismiss SLAPP suits as an abuse of process, but that such a determination rests on the merits of the suit in question, as well as on its motives.

References

  1. ↑ Pring, George William; Canan, Penelope (1996). SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out. Temple University Press. p. x. ISBN   978-1-56639-369-0.
  2. ↑ "Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (Freedom of Expression) Bill [HL]". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Vol. 820. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Lords. 18 March 2022. col. 571.
  3. 1 2 Rafsanjani, Nazanin (2 April 2010). "SLAPP Back: Transcript". On The Media . WNYC (National Public Radio, PBS). Archived from the original on 21 May 2013. Retrieved 29 June 2011.
  4. ↑ McDevitt, John (16 May 2013). "Whacked By Lawsuit Costs, Old City Civic Association Disbands". KYW-TV, CBS. Philadelphia.
  5. ↑ Tate, Kathryn W. (1 April 2000). "California's Anti-Slapp Legislation: A Summary of and Commentary on Its Operation and Scope". Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review . 33: 801–886. Retrieved 7 July 2017.
  6. ↑ Sheldrick, Byron (2014). Blocking Public Participation: The Use of Strategic Litigation to Silence Political Expression. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. p. 50. ISBN   978-1-55458-930-2 . Retrieved 12 November 2014.
  7. ↑ Sheldrick, Byron (18 February 2014). Blocking Public Participation: The Use of Strategic Litigation to Silence Political Expression. Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press. p. 22. ISBN   978-1-55458-931-9. "The strength of a SLAPP lawsuit is in its capacity to tie the defendants up in legal manoeuvring, prolong the litigation, and drain resources."
  8. ↑ Gillers, Stephen (2018). Journalism Under Fire: Protecting the Future of Investigative Reporting. Columbia University Press. p. 116. ISBN   978-0-231-54733-8. "For some plaintiffs, the prospect of court victory may not be primary. Instead, the goal may be to force the defendant to spend both time and money by making the court fight as prolonged and expensive as possible."
  9. ↑ Pring, George W.; Canan, Penelope (1996). SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out. Temple University Press. pp. 8–9. ISBN   978-0-375-75258-2.
  10. 1 2 "(California) Code of Civil Procedure – Section 425.16". California Anti-SLAPP Project. 2009 [Ratified 1992, last amended 2009]. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process.
  11. ↑ Mark, Gregory A. (1 January 1998). "The Vestigial Constitution: The History and Significance of the Right to Petition". Fordham Law Review . 66 (6).
  12. ↑ "Queen Mary II of Stuart (1689–1694)". Kings of England. 2010. Archived from the original on 26 March 2012. Retrieved 29 June 2011.
  13. ↑ Pring, George William; Canan, Penelope (1996). SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out. Temple University Press. p. ix. ISBN   978-1-56639-369-0.
  14. ↑ Belmas, Genelle; Overbeck, Wayne (4 August 2014). Major Principles of Media Law, 2015. Cengage Learning. pp. 178–189. ISBN   978-1-305-44555-0.
  15. ↑ "California Anti-SLAPP". Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
  16. ↑ "Protection of Public Participation Act 2008" (PDF). Parliamentary Counsel's Office. Australian Capital Territory. 12 December 2011. Retrieved 7 July 2017.
  17. ↑ "Home Equity Development v. Crow, et al (2002 BCSC 1138)". British Columbia Superior Courts. 30 July 2002. Retrieved 23 May 2015.
  18. 1 2 "BC trails Quebec, Ontario in protecting public from chilling lawsuits". West Coast Environmental Law Association. 6 June 2010. Retrieved 6 July 2017.
  19. ↑ Jones, Ryan Patrick (8 March 2019). "B.C. legislature unanimously passes anti-SLAPP legislation". CBC News. Retrieved 10 March 2019.
  20. ↑ "Protection of Public Participation Act". Nova Scotia legislature. 23 May 2001.
  21. ↑ "Anti-SLAPP Advisory Panel". Ministry of the Attorney General. June 2013. Retrieved 16 January 2017.
  22. ↑ "Renewing the Debate on Anti-SLAPP Legislation in Ontario". Law is Cool. 6 October 2011.
  23. ↑ Ali, Shelina (28 August 2014). "Protecting public debate through anti-SLAPP legislation". rabble.ca .
  24. ↑ "August 21, 2014 Meeting Minutes". Council of the Corporation of The Township of Billings . 21 August 2014.
  25. ↑ "SLAPP silly". Environmental Defence Canada. 3 March 2014. Archived from the original on 10 November 2014.
  26. ↑ "CCLA Urges Ontario Attorney General to Pass Protection of Public Participation Bill". Canadian Civil Liberties Association. 2 December 2013. Archived from the original on 10 November 2014.
  27. ↑ "Organizations continue call for anti-SLAPP legislation in Ontario". Canadian Journalists for Free Expression. 6 October 2014.
  28. ↑ "Letter Minister John Gerretson, Attorney General: Bill 83, Protection of Public Participation Act, 2013". Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. 29 November 2013.
  29. ↑ Cadan, Yossi (9 February 2014). "Ontario still has time to pass environmental bills". Toronto Star .
  30. ↑ "Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015". Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Retrieved 27 March 2020.
  31. ↑ Pelletier, Vincent (August 2008). "Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs) (and other abusive lawsuits)" (PDF). Uniform Law Conference of Canada, Civil Section (English & French). Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 October 2011. Retrieved 29 June 2011.
  32. ↑ "Les Editions Ecosociete Inc., Alain Deneault, Delphine Abadie and William Sacher v. Banro Corporation" (PDF). British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. 10 March 2011. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 April 2012.
  33. ↑ Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision available at LexUM and CanLII
  34. ↑ "Noir Canada Defamation Lawsuit Settled, Publication of Book Stopped". Canadian Association of University Teachers Bulletin. Archived from the original on 30 September 2017. Retrieved 16 January 2017.
  35. ↑ "Anti-SLAPP Law in California". Digital Media Law Project. Retrieved 16 January 2017.
  36. ↑ Pollet, Mathieu (13 May 2021). "EU Parliament to counter lawsuits designed to silence journalists, NGOs". EURACTIV France.
  37. ↑ "Anti-SLAPP Statutes: 2023 Report Card". Institute for Free Speech. Retrieved 14 December 2023.
  38. ↑ "Wiggin and Dana Secures Dismissal of Defamation Suit under New 'Anti-SLAPP' Law". Wiggin and Dana LLP. Retrieved 22 August 2019.
  39. ↑ Adkisson, Jay (18 April 2022). "Kentucky Adopts The Uniform Public Expression Protection Act". Forbes. Retrieved 23 November 2022.
  40. ↑ Kluft, David A. (9 July 2014). "The Scalpel or the Bludgeon? Twenty Years of Anti-SLAPP in Massachusetts". Boston Bar Journal. Retrieved 2 June 2016.
  41. ↑ "Citizen Participation Act takes aim at frivolous lawsuits". Alpine Avalanche . 31 March 2011. Archived from the original on 28 February 2021. Retrieved 10 November 2014.
  42. ↑ "Texas' Citizen Participation Act gets stronger". Lexology.com. 21 June 2013.
  43. ↑ "Bill Tracking – 2017 session > Legislation". lis.virginia.gov. Retrieved 28 September 2017.
  44. ↑ "H.R.4364 – Citizen Participation Act of 2009 (As introduced in House December 16, 2009)". Open Congress for the 112th United States Congress. Participatory Politics Foundation and Sunlight Foundation. Retrieved 26 June 2011.
  45. ↑ Albanese, Andrew (12 August 2010). "Obama Signs Libel Tourism Law". Publishers Weekly . Retrieved 26 June 2012.
  46. ↑ "Godin v. Schenks; 629 F.3d 79 (1st. Cir. 2010)". FindLaw . 22 December 2010.
  47. ↑ "Henry v. Lake Charles Am. Press, L.L.C.; 566 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2009)" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 14 April 2009.
  48. ↑ "United States v. Lockheed Missiles and Space Company". California Anti-SLAPP Project. 31 May 2011. Retrieved 29 June 2011.
  49. ↑ "Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC; 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2015)" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. 24 April 2015.
  50. ↑ "FAQS about SLAPPS". Public Participation Project. Archived from the original on 3 April 2016. Retrieved 26 June 2012.
  51. ↑ "State Supreme Court Strikes Down Washington's Anti-SLAPP Statute". 1 February 2016. Lexology.com
  52. ↑ "Washington State Passes New Anti-SLAPP Statute | Davis Wright Tremaine". www.dwt.com. Retrieved 11 March 2022.
  53. ↑ Boucher, David; Kelly, Paul (1994). The Social Contract from Hobbes to Rawls (1st ed.). Routledge. ISBN   978-0-415-10846-1.
  54. ↑ "California Motor Transport Co. et al. v. Trucking Unlimited et al. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit". FindLaw. 1972. (404 U.S. 508, 510)
  55. ↑ United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit (1986). "780 F.2d 1422: Rondell Harrison and Sharon Harrison, Appellants, v. Springdale Water & Sewer Commission, Mcgoodwin, Williams & Yates, Inc., Walter Turnbow, Larry Clinkscales and Harold Henson, Appellees". Justia.com. 780 F.2d 1422, 1427
  56. ↑ Supreme Court of Georgia (2002). "Denton et al. v. Browns Mill Development Company, Inc. et al". FindLaw. 561 S.E.2d 431
  57. ↑ DeKalb (Georgia) Superior Court; Judge Workman (2000). "Browns Mill Development Company, Inc. et al. v. Denton et al". LawSkills. 543 S.E.2d 65
  58. ↑ Supreme Court of Georgia (30 November 2006). "Earthresources, LLC v. Morgan County, et al. (two cases)". FindLaw. Nos. S06A1150, S06A1713.
  59. ↑ Supreme Court (Rhode Island) (4 August 2004) [filed]. "Stephen Alves v. Hometown Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a The Kent County Daily Times et al" (PDF). Rhode Island Judiciary. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 September 2017. Retrieved 30 June 2011. 857 A.2d 743
  60. ↑ Supreme Court of Rhode Island (3 April 2008). "Alan G. Palazzo et al. v. Stephen D. Alves". FindLaw. No. 2006-172-Appeal
  61. 1 2 3 [2005] VSC 251
  62. 1 2 3 [2006] VSC 386
  63. ↑ Darby, Andrew (29 August 2006). "Gunns, greenies and the law". The Age . Retrieved 10 June 2007.
  64. ↑ "The Law Report". ABC Radio National . 25 January 2005. Archived from the original on 1 February 2010.
  65. ↑ "Middle ground views are up against battleground tactics". The Sydney Morning Herald . 7 April 2005.
  66. ↑ "Gunns abandons legal action against Greens leaders". ABC News Online . 13 December 2006. Retrieved 11 June 2007.
  67. ↑ "Internacional: as motivações em inglês para nomer Vale pior multinacional do mundo". Justica nos Trilhos. 11 January 2012. Archived from the original on 16 June 2012. Retrieved 9 September 2012.
  68. ↑ Nick (9 January 2012). "Thyssen-Krup Steel Company tries to silence EJOLT partner with a slapp suit". Environmental Justice Organisations, Liabilities and Trade . Retrieved 9 September 2012.
  69. ↑ Guerette, Deb (10 November 1998). "Daishowa off hook for Lubicon boycott court costs". Record-Gazette.
  70. ↑ Sheldrick, Byron (25 March 2014). Blocking Public Participation: The Use of Strategic Litigation to Silence Political Expression. Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press. pp. 71–76. ISBN   978-1-55458-930-2.
  71. ↑ Tyler, Tracey (19 October 2011). "Supreme Court ruling big victory for Internet freedom". Toronto Star.
  72. ↑ Zlomislic, Diana (7 July 2010). "Youth lock-ups blasted". Toronto Star.
  73. ↑ "B.C. developer ordered to pay for failed defamation suit against local conservation group". Ecojustice Canada . 12 October 2011. Archived from the original on 24 November 2020. Retrieved 7 July 2017.
  74. ↑ "Ecojustice scores big victory for the little guys". Ecojustice Canada. 26 May 2011. Archived from the original on 29 November 2020. Retrieved 7 July 2017.
  75. ↑ Benoit, David (30 March 2012). "Sino-Forest Sues Muddy Waters for $4 Billion". Wall Street Journal .
  76. ↑ "Settlement Agreement between Staff and David Horsley". Ontario Securities Commission. paragraph 12. 21 July 2014. Retrieved 18 September 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  77. ↑ "Sino-Forest files for bankruptcy protection". BBC . 30 March 2012.
  78. ↑ "Statement of Claim – Sino-Forest v Muddy Waters" (PDF). Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 18 September 2016.
  79. ↑ Hopper, Tristin (24 September 2014). "Everybody is suing everybody: A guide to whom is threatening whom with legal action in Toronto's political scene". National Post .
  80. ↑ Ballingall, Alex (6 November 2014). "Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell threatens to sue councillors". Toronto Star.
  81. ↑ Bascaramurty, Dakshana (24 September 2014). "Brampton council puts off issue of misspending by mayor, councillors". The Globe and Mail.
  82. ↑ "Cometik home page". Cometik. (Warning: on each site, a video is automatically played after the loading of the page.)
  83. ↑ "Publication judiciaire à la demande de la société Cometik". Agences Web surprenantes (in French). 7 April 2011. Retrieved 29 June 2011.
  84. 1 2 Bellamy, Jann (18 January 2018). "Cancer quack Colleen Huber sues Britt Hermes over criticism". Science-Based Medicine. Retrieved 16 November 2019.
  85. ↑ Devlin, Hannah (27 March 2018) "The naturopath whistleblower: ‘It is surprisingly easy to sell snake oil’", The Guardian . Retrieved 23 June 2020.
  86. ↑ Gerbic, Susan (15 July 2019). "Catching Up With Britt Hermes – CSICon 2019". Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved 16 November 2019.
  87. 1 2 3 "WhiteHat Jr withdraws defamation suit against vocal critic". The Economic Times. 4 May 2021. Retrieved 17 November 2021.
  88. ↑ Mandhani, Apoorva; Mihindukulasuriya, Regina (30 November 2020). "Boon for locked down kids or 'marketing hype'? Decoding WhiteHat Jr's legal brawls with critics". ThePrint . Retrieved 17 November 2021.
  89. ↑ "Whitehat Jr to foray into Brazil, Mexico; create 1 lakh teaching jobs in India in 3 years". The Economic Times. 13 December 2020. Retrieved 17 November 2021.
  90. ↑ "כתב אישום על גניבה, מרמה, זיוף והלבנת הון נגד אמיר ברמלי" [An indictment for theft, fraud, forgery and money laundering against Amir Bramli]. calcalist.co.il (in Hebrew). 26 June 2016. Retrieved 6 July 2017.
  91. ↑ "Supermodel Bar Refaeli alleges identity theft". Times of Israel . 14 January 2016. Retrieved 6 July 2017.
  92. ↑ "ברמלי תובע מיליון שקל מכתב "כלכליסט": "פרסם ידיעות השזורות דברי השמצה"" [Bramly sues NIS 1 million from Calcalist: 'Published reports slanderous']. Walla! . 31 October 2016. Retrieved 6 July 2017.
  93. ↑ "Amir Bramly opens another front: 'News2 presented me as a crook'". TheMarker . 14 March 2016.
  94. ↑ "ברמלי מתכוון להגיש שורת תביעות לשון הרע נגד "מכפישיו"" [Bramly intends to file a series of libel claims against his detractors]. Globes . 1 December 2015. Retrieved 6 July 2017.
  95. ↑ "כתב כלכליסט משיב לברמלי: "תביעת השתקה כוחנית ובריונית"" [Calcalist responds to Bramly: 'Demand for aggressive and brutal silencing']. Walla!. 26 December 2016. Retrieved 6 July 2017.
  96. ↑ ""תביעתו של ברמלי – ניסיון פסול להסיט את תשומת הלב מהחשדות נגדו" – וואלה! ברנז'ה" [Channel2 News: 'Bramly's lawsuit is misguided attempt to divert attention from the suspicions against him']. Walla!. 26 May 2016. Retrieved 6 July 2017.
  97. 1 2 3 Prideaux, Eric (8 February 2007). "Oricon Sues Over Interviewee's Comment, Libel suit attacks free speech: defendant". The Japan Times .
  98. 1 2 "Abandonment of the Claim Against a Japanese Journalist". Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) . 6 August 2009. Archived from the original on 20 March 2016. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  99. ↑ "JNN Reportage – Legal Intimidation Against Free Speech: What is SLAPP?" Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Created by Hiroyuki Akiyama. Copyright Tokyo Broadcasting System Television, Inc.
  100. ↑ Oslo District Court decision on 1 Juni 2018 in the matter TOBYF-2018-83936
  101. ↑ "Norwegian Court Orders Website Of Public Domain Court Decisions Shut Down With No Due Process". Techdirt . 18 June 2018.
  102. ↑ Supreme Court of Norway decision on 11 September 2019 in the matter HR-2019-1725-A. . Accessed 21 October 2022.
  103. 1 2 3 Savatović, Mladen (21 April 2021). ""Slap tužbe" protiv medija koji nisu po volji - bilo nekad, sad se ponavlja". N1.
  104. ↑ "Serbia's fall on media freedom list: "If it continues like this, there will no longer be anything to measure"". 5 May 2020.
  105. ↑ Limited, Bangkok Post Public Company. "Journalist prevails in another 'Slapp' case". Bangkok Post. Retrieved 28 March 2024.
  106. ↑ "Thailand: Judicial harassment against community rights and anti-corruption activist Chutima Sidasathian". International Federation for Human Rights. Retrieved 28 March 2024.
  107. 1 2 3 Tobitt, Charlotte (24 January 2022). "SLAPP down: David Davis says Putin's People libel case cost ex-FT journalist £1.5m". Press Gazette .
  108. ↑ Pegg, Simon (4 March 2022). "Move to add free speech protections to UK anti-corruption bill". The Guardian.
  109. ↑ Ames, Jonathan. "Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi 'told solicitors to send Slapp letter'".
  110. ↑ Turner, Wallace (14 February 1982). "NUCLEAR PROTEST LEADS TO LAWSUIT". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 November 2022.
  111. ↑ "Abalone Alliance campaigns against Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, California, 1976-1984". Global Nonviolent Action Database. Swarthmore College. Retrieved 18 November 2022.
  112. ↑ "County of San Luis Obispo v. Abalone Alliance (1986)". Justia. 13 March 1986. Retrieved 18 November 2022.
  113. ↑ Morain, Dan (29 March 1985). "Court Upholds Client's Right to Sue Lawyer". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 18 November 2022.
  114. ↑ "Coltrain v. Shewalter (Appeal from the Superior Court of Riverside County, No. 278681)". California Anti-SLAPP Project. 19 August 1998.
  115. ↑ Winner, Karen (1996). Divorced from Justice: The Abuse of Women and Children by Divorce Lawyers and Judges. ReganBooks/Harper Collins. ISBN   978-0-06-039184-3.
  116. ↑ Ashley, Guy. "The spark behind the court firestorm". Marin Independent Journal . Archived from the original on 22 October 2009.
  117. ↑ Barron, James (13 March 1992). "Divorce Lawyers Criticized By Consumer Affairs Chief". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 November 2022.
  118. ↑ Dao, James (5 May 1993). "DIVORCE LAWYERS ASSAILED IN STUDY BY ALBANY PANEL". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 November 2022.
  119. ↑ Winner, Karen (March 1992). Women in divorce : lawyers, ethics, fees & fairness : a study. New York, NY: City of New York Dept. of Consumer Affairs. Retrieved 19 November 2022.
  120. ↑ William J. Cook, "Final Reply Brief of Appellant/Respondent Ernie Weaver in the Charleston County case", 2001-CP-10-2967.
  121. ↑ Final Reply Brief of Appellant/Respondent Ernie Weaver in the Charleston County case, 2001-CP-10-2967.
  122. ↑ "Streisand Sues to Suppress Free Speech Protection (and additional items)". California Coastline.org. Kenneth Adelman.
  123. ↑ "Streisand's Lawsuit to Silence Coastal Website Dismissed". Mindfully.org. Kenneth Adelman. Archived from the original on 21 December 2004.
  124. ↑ "Global Telemedia International, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al". California Anti-SLAPP Project. 23 February 2001.
  125. 1 2 "Atlanta Humane Society v. Mills". Citizen Media Law Project.
  126. ↑ Supreme Court of Georgia (27 September 2004). "Atlanta Humane Society v. Harkins, Atlanta Humane Society et al. v. Harkins, Atlanta Humane Society et al. v. Mills. Nos. S04G0613, S04G0684, S04G0685". Findlaw.
  127. ↑ "Kathi Mills' Atlanta Humane Case Thrown Out". Stop Pet Overpopulation Now. Atlanta, Georgia. 21 November 2003. Archived from the original on 26 March 2012.
  128. ↑ Malone, Dan (28 January 2004). "Metropolis: Suing to Silence?". Fort Worth Weekly . Retrieved 16 January 2017.
  129. ↑ Egelko, Bob (25 April 2009). "What Do You Expect? It's Talk Radio, Court Says". SFGate . Hearst Communications.
  130. ↑ Okamoto, Sherri M. (27 April 2009). "Court: Radio Talk Show Host's Statements Not Actionable: Panel Concludes Reasonable Listeners Would Consider Comments Opinion". Metropolitan News-Enterprise .
  131. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding (7 July 2008). "Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon: Gardner v. Martino" (PDF). uscourts.gov. Retrieved 30 June 2011.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  132. ↑ Beschizza, Rob (23 February 2010). "MagicJack Legal Documents". BoingBoing. Retrieved 30 June 2011.
  133. ↑ "Dole Fruit Company Inc. v. Fredrik Gertten et.al., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles" (PDF). bananasthemovie.com. 17 November 2010.
  134. ↑ Wang, Amy B. (31 March 2011). "Arizona appeals court tosses lawsuit filed against parents by school district". The Arizona Republic .
  135. ↑ Martin, Susan Taylor (10 December 2010). "Nationwide Title goes on attack against vocal critics". Tampa Bay Times . Archived from the original on 14 December 2010. Retrieved 11 December 2010.
  136. ↑ Newman, Jared (12 April 2011). "Sony, George Hotz Settle PS3 Hacking Lawsuit". PCWorld. IDG. Archived from the original on 6 May 2021. Retrieved 22 February 2019.
  137. 1 2 Lee, David (15 January 2016). "$1.3 Million in Anti-SLAPP Sanctions". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved 9 October 2017.
  138. ↑ Lee, David (29 February 2016). "$1.3 Million Anti-SLAPP Award Rescinded". Courthousenews.com. Retrieved 9 October 2017.
  139. ↑ "Hanszen Laporte Wins $450,000 Against Plaintiffs Who Filed Baseless Defamation Suits" (PDF). Hanszen LaPorte. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 December 2019. Retrieved 9 October 2017.
  140. ↑ "Steubenville, Ohio: Gang Rape + SLAPP Suit". The Legal Satyricon. 3 December 2012. Retrieved 21 March 2013.
  141. ↑ Law, Mark (31 October 2012). "Suit filed against site operator". Herald-Star . Archived from the original on 4 May 2014. Retrieved 21 March 2013.
  142. ↑ Wilonsky, Robert (14 August 2015). "Judge sanctions State Fair of Texas after it sued lawyer who wants to see Big Tex's checkbook". The Dallas Morning News . Archived from the original on 7 September 2016. Retrieved 16 January 2017.
  143. ↑ Bradley, Laura (2 August 2017). "A.C.L.U. Defends John Oliver from Stupid Lawsuit in Hilarious Amicus Brief". Vanity Fair . Retrieved 7 September 2021.
  144. ↑ Luperon, Alberto (1 August 2017). "ACLU Files Snarkiest Legal Brief Ever Defending John Oliver". Law and Crime . Retrieved 7 September 2021.
  145. ↑ Oliver, John (10 November 2019). "SLAPP Suits". Last Week Tonight with John Oliver . Archived from the original on 11 December 2021. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
  146. 1 2 3 Jouvenal, Justin (22 December 2019). "Devin Nunes, Johnny Depp lawsuits seen as threats to free speech and press". The Washington Post. Retrieved 25 February 2020.
  147. ↑ Techdirt (6 December 2019). "Devin Nunes' Virginia SLAPP Suits Causing Virginia Legislators To Consider A New Anti-SLAPP Law". Above the Law. Retrieved 25 February 2020.
  148. ↑ Vicky Ward and Katelyn Polantz (4 December 2019). "Nunes disputes claim that he met with former Ukrainian prosecutor to get dirt on Bidens". CNN. Retrieved 6 December 2019.
  149. ↑ Irby, Kate (1 October 2019). "Another Devin Nunes lawsuit: Congressman sues magazine over story about family's Iowa farm". The Fresno Bee. Retrieved 25 February 2020.
  150. ↑ Jouvenal, Justin (11 February 2020). "Va. legislature passes bills aimed at lawsuits by Devin Nunes, Johnny Depp". The Washington Post. Retrieved 25 February 2020.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.