Short for strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPPs have become an all-too-common tool for intimidating and silencing criticism through expensive, baseless legal proceedings.
Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide a remedy to SLAPP suits. Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights. In terms of reporting, news organizations and individual journalists can use anti-SLAPP statutes to protect themselves from the financial threat of a groundless defamation case brought by a subject of an enterprise or investigative story.
Under most anti-SLAPP statutes, the person sued makes a motion to strike the case because it involves speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then has the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail in the suit — meaning they must show that they have evidence that could result in a favorable verdict. If the plaintiff cannot meet this burden and the suit is dismissed through anti-SLAPP proceedings, many statutes allow defendants to collect attorney’s fees from the plaintiff. —The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Hong Kong: journalist permanently blinded in one eye amid increased police violence
Facebook just dealt another potentially lethal blow to local journalism
Musician Daryl Davis Has Converted Hundreds of KKK Members Over 30 Years — Here's How
An Open Letter to Reuters Reporters Nate Raymond and David Ingram
Candyland is a masterpiece of game design (John Brieger unpacks the specific cultural cont...
Fascinating observation on Trump's ability to drive the "Spygate" story