Keith Mack
Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect individuals from strategic lawsuits against public participation, also known as SLAPP suits. SLAPP suits are often used to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with legal costs. Anti-SLAPP laws vary across different jurisdictions, with some states offering broader protections than others. While anti-SLAPP laws aim to safeguard free speech and the right to petition the government, they have also faced constitutional challenges regarding the right to a jury trial. The effectiveness of these laws in providing a remedy against SLAPP suits is a topic of ongoing debate.
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Anti-SLAPP laws and the right to free speech
Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defence until they abandon their criticism. In a typical SLAPP lawsuit, the plaintiff does not normally expect to win. Instead, their goal is accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons their criticism.
Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect free speech from being threatened or shut down by people on the receiving end of critical speech. They are intended to prevent SLAPP lawsuits by providing defendants with a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits filed against them for exercising their First Amendment rights. These laws recognise the importance of free speech by putting the burden on the person who is suing to demonstrate why the lawsuit needs to happen. Once the person being sued shows that the lawsuit is challenging their free speech rights, an anti-SLAPP law requires the person bringing the lawsuit to demonstrate that they are likely to win the case. If they cannot do so, the case will be dismissed. Anti-SLAPP laws also allow the immediate appeal of the initial decision, saving significant time and money.
The protections offered by anti-SLAPP laws vary significantly from state to state in the United States. For example, in some states, like Arizona, they only protect defendants from cases brought in retaliation for petitioning the government. In others, such as California, the laws broadly protect speech made in connection with a public issue. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have anti-SLAPP laws. However, despite repeated attempts, Congress has never passed a federal anti-SLAPP law.
In some cases, courts have found anti-SLAPP laws to be unconstitutional under their respective state constitutions. For instance, in 2016, a Minnesota appellate court found that the state's anti-SLAPP law deprived the non-moving party of the right to a jury trial by requiring a court to make pretrial factual findings to determine whether the moving party is immune from liability. However, in 2021, Minnesota enacted an updated anti-SLAPP law that addressed the concerns of the state supreme court.
Outside of the United States, the European Parliament approved an anti-SLAPP directive in April 2024, which is a legally binding tool for member states.
Contract Law Basics: Article 1 Explained
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Anti-SLAPP laws in different states
Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to prevent people from using courts and the potential threat of a lawsuit to intimidate those exercising their First Amendment rights. As of June 2025, 38 states and the District of Columbia have anti-SLAPP laws, including Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
The protections offered by anti-SLAPP laws vary significantly from state to state. For instance, in some states, like Arizona and Massachusetts, they only protect defendants from cases brought in retaliation for petitioning the government. In other states, such as California, the laws are broader and protect speech made in connection with a public issue. In California, anti-SLAPP laws include suits about speech on any public issue.
In November 2020, New York expanded its anti-SLAPP law, which initially only covered cases brought by plaintiffs seeking public permits, zoning changes, or other entitlements from a government body. The amendments broadened the law to cover cases involving "any communication in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest."
Some states, such as Washington and Minnesota, have had their anti-SLAPP laws struck down as unconstitutional under their respective state constitutions. However, Washington enacted an updated anti-SLAPP law in 2021 that addressed the concerns of the state supreme court. Idaho, which does not currently have an anti-SLAPP law, has seen recent defamation suits that highlight the ability of wealthy parties to use frivolous legal claims to unfairly drain the resources of less affluent opponents.
The Origin of Law and Effect: A Historical Perspective
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Anti-SLAPP laws and the right to a jury trial
Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide a remedy to SLAPP suits, which are strategic lawsuits against public participation. These lawsuits are intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defence until they abandon their criticism. Anti-SLAPP laws provide defendants with a way to quickly dismiss these meritless lawsuits, which are filed against individuals for exercising their First Amendment rights.
The protections offered by anti-SLAPP laws vary significantly from state to state in the United States. For instance, in Arizona, these laws only protect defendants from cases filed in retaliation for petitioning the government. In California, on the other hand, the laws are more extensive, safeguarding speech connected with any public issue. In May 2021, Washington became the first state to adopt a version of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), a model anti-SLAPP law. This new protection applies to suits based on a person's exercise of speech, press, assembly, petition, and association rights "on a matter of public concern."
While many states have enacted anti-SLAPP laws, some states have found these laws to be unconstitutional. In 2015, the Washington Supreme Court struck down the state's original anti-SLAPP law, ruling that it violated the plaintiff's constitutional right to a jury trial. The court found that the evidentiary burden required to defeat a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP law was higher than that needed for a motion to dismiss or summary judgment. Minnesota's anti-SLAPP law was also found to be unconstitutional for similar reasons, as it deprived the non-moving party of the right to a jury trial by requiring a court to make pretrial factual findings. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed, concluding that the law violated the plaintiff's right to a trial by jury under the state constitution.
The absence of a federal anti-SLAPP law in the United States means that journalists and their sources rely on robust state anti-SLAPP laws for protection. The passage of the UPEPA and the amendments to state anti-SLAPP laws that expand their scope reflect a positive trend towards strengthening First Amendment rights. However, as more SLAPP suits are filed in federal court, the application of state anti-SLAPP laws at this level becomes increasingly crucial.
Leandra's Law: Protecting Children from Drunk Driving
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Anti-SLAPP laws in international contexts
Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to prevent people from using courts and the potential threat of a lawsuit to intimidate those exercising their First Amendment rights. These laws provide defendants with a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits filed against them. In the context of reporting, news organisations and journalists can use anti-SLAPP statutes to protect themselves from the financial threat of groundless defamation cases. Under most anti-SLAPP laws, the person sued can make a motion to strike the case because it involves speech on a matter of public concern.
The effectiveness of anti-SLAPP laws varies across different jurisdictions. For instance, in the US, anti-SLAPP laws vary significantly from state to state. While some states, like Arizona, only protect defendants from cases filed in retaliation for petitioning the government, others, like California, broadly protect speech made in connection with a public issue. As of April 2022, 32 states and the District of Columbia have anti-SLAPP laws in place. In November 2020, New York expanded its anti-SLAPP law to cover cases involving communication in a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.
In Canada, the Quebec law is substantially different in structure from that of California or other jurisdictions, as Quebec's Constitution generally subordinates itself to international law, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) applies. This treaty only permits liability for arbitrary and unlawful speech. The ICCPR has been cited as the standard for balancing free speech versus reputation rights.
In Europe, the European Parliament approved an anti-SLAPP directive in April 2024, which is a legally binding tool for member states. This came in addition to the non-binding recommendation issued by the European Commission in April 2022.
In Germany, there are no protections against SLAPP lawsuits. However, in a notable case, a court ruled that a blog post by a scientific skeptic was protected speech under Article 5 (1) of the German Constitution.
In Australia, the organisation Australian Skeptics set up a fund to help with the legal costs of a SLAPP case against a notable scientific skeptic, Britt Hermes.
Understanding Tender Time Contracts: Law Basics
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$18.22 $19.99
Anti-SLAPP laws and the media
Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of legal defence until they abandon their criticism. In a typical SLAPP lawsuit, the plaintiff does not normally expect to win but instead aims to intimidate the defendant into abandoning their criticism through fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or exhaustion.
Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to prevent people from using courts and the potential threat of a lawsuit to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights. Anti-SLAPP laws provide defendants with a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits filed against them for exercising these rights. In the context of investigative journalism, anti-SLAPP laws can protect journalists and news outlets from the financial threat of a groundless defamation case brought by the subject of an investigative story.
The scope of anti-SLAPP protections varies significantly from state to state in the United States. For example, in some states, like Arizona, they only protect defendants from cases brought in retaliation for petitioning the government. In other states, such as California, the laws broadly protect speech made in connection with a public issue, including suits aimed at silencing or retaliating against journalists or news outlets for critical reporting.
In November 2020, New York significantly expanded its anti-SLAPP law to cover cases involving "any communication in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest" and "any other lawful conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest". This means that New York's revised anti-SLAPP law should apply to news reporting in general. Other states, such as Washington and Minnesota, have had their anti-SLAPP laws struck down as unconstitutional under their respective state constitutions. However, Washington enacted an updated anti-SLAPP law in 2021 that addressed the concerns of the state supreme court.
On 11 April 2024, the European Parliament approved an anti-SLAPP directive, which is a legally binding tool for member states. This adds to the non-binding recommendation issued by the European Commission in April 2022.
Bolivian Revolution's Legal Legacy: Laws Post-1952
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
SLAPP stands for Strategic lawsuit against public participation. These are meritless lawsuits designed to chill constitutionally protected speech on matters of public concern.
Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide a remedy to SLAPP suits. They are intended to prevent people from using courts and potential threats of a lawsuit to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
Anti-SLAPP laws vary from state to state in the US. While some states like Arizona protect defendants from cases brought in retaliation for petitioning the government, others like California more broadly protect speech made in connection with a public issue. Courts in Washington and Minnesota struck down their states' anti-SLAPP laws, finding them unconstitutional under their respective state constitutions. However, Washington enacted a new anti-SLAPP law in 2021 that addressed the concerns of the state supreme court.
