Strategic lawsuit against public participation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject.
Please help improve the article with a good introductory style.

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is litigation intended to intimidate and silence critics or opponents by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense so that they abandon their criticism or opposition. The acronym was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring. It 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.[1] It has been defined more broadly by some to include suits arising from speech in connection with a public issue.[2]

Contents

[edit] SLAPPs by location

[edit] Australia

  • TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED -V- MULLINS [2001]. Mullen spoke out about Telstra's creative accounting. Telstra responding with a SLAPP alleging Mullens was indebted to it but could produce no evidence to support its claim.
  • 2CLIX -V- Simon Wright. Forum postings express users' dissatisfactions and frustrations with 2Clix software, the company itself and its policies, from allegedly dodgy sales practices and reports of problems with software functionality and performance to complaints that 2Clix quickly locked customers out of their business records for nonpayment of maintenance charges, were the basis for the action against Wright. The action was widely reported as a SLAPP lawsuit trying to suppress negative publicity, and was quickly discontinued.
  • Gunns 20 - Gunns Limited v Marr & Ors, is a current case, filed by Gunns (a major forestry company with main office in Tasmania) in the Supreme Court of Victoria, against 20 individuals and organizations for over 7.8 million dollars.

[edit] Canada

One of the first cases in Canada to deal with 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 came into effect in British Columbia in April, 2001. It was repealed in August, 2001.

The first case to discuss and apply the PPPA was Home Equity Development v. Crow, (see [2002] B.C.J. No. 1805 (B.C. S.C.)) (QL). 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. Many 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.

In Ontario, the decision in Daishowa v. Friends of the Lubicon (see [1996] O.J. No. 3855 Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.)) (QL) was also instructive on SLAPP’s. 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.

Some political libel and forum shopping incidents, both common in Canada, have been called SLAPP suits, because such suits load defendants with costs of responding in unfamiliar jurisdictions or at times (typically elections) when they're extremely busy and short of funds. Both types of suits are almost unique to Canada, so there is little concern nor examination of whether political subject matter or remote forums are a clear indicator of SLAPP.

[edit] Europe

In February 2005 the European Court of Human Rights found that Helen Steel and David Morris did not receive a fair trial while defending a libel action brought by McDonald's in the United Kingdom. In what became known as the McLibel case, the two had been found guilty in 1994 of libelling the company in a leaflet. The court ruled that, because legal aid is not available to libel defendants, their right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated. They were awarded £24,000 damages, plus costs.

[edit] New Zealand

Other examples include:

[edit] South Africa

Anglo Platinum, the world's largest platinum miner and a subsidiary of Anglo American PLC, the world's second largest mining corporation, filed SLAPPs against a South African public interest lawyer Richard Spoor, who represented indigenous communities affected by platinum mining on tribal land. The actions include an application in the High Court for a so-called gagging order, ostensibly to prevent him further injuring the good name and reputation of the corporation, the lodging of complaints with the Law Society of unprofessional behaviour and the lodging of a civil action for damages for some $500,000.00. AngloPlatinum also obtained an ex parte (without notice) order interdicting two tribal chiefs from interfering with their mining operations and had them arrested on charges of intimidation and trespass. Subsequently, followers of the two tribal chiefs were shot, beaten and arrested for protesting the mine's presence on tribal land.[citation needed]

[edit] United States

[edit] California

The U.S. state of California enacted Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 in 1992, a statute intended to prevent the misuse of litigation in SLAPP suits. It provides for a special motion which a defendant can file at the outset of a lawsuit to strike a complaint where the complaint 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.

The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion prevents the plaintiff from amending the complaint and stays all discovery. If the special motion is denied, the filing of an appeal immediately stays the trial court proceedings as to each challenged cause of action. Defendants prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion (including any subsequent appeal) are entitled to a mandatory award of reasonable attorney’s fees. More than 200 published court opinions have interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law.

California's Code of Civil Procedure § 425.17 corrects abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16). Signed into law on September 6, 2003, this statute prohibits anti-SLAPP motions in response to certain public interest lawsuits and class actions, and actions that arise from commercial statements or conduct. Section 425.18, signed into law on October 6, 2005, was enacted to facilitate SLAPP victims in recovering their damages through a SLAPPback (malicious prosecution action) against the SLAPP filers and their attorneys after the underlying SLAPP has been dismissed.

The most current SLAPP case is presently ongoing in San Bernardino Superior Court. There, Nancy Bohl who is a licensed Marriage counselor who serves as the San Bernardino County sheriff's Psychologist is suing a newspaper for revealing what they considered various unsavory acts. The costs to the defendant Ray Pryke's newspaper are now approaching one half million dollars with no end in sight.

[edit] Other States

At least 25 other states and one territory have also enacted statutory protections against SLAPPs. These are Arkansas, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington. In Colorado and West Virginia, the courts have adopted protections against SLAPPs.

[edit] Federal

There is no direct equivalent of a SLAPP statute in U.S. federal law; the closest available remedy is the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in federal antitrust law. According to Canan and Pring, this situation is probably because of differences in pleading requirements between federal and state civil procedure.

California and most states operate under a "code pleading" regime, in which a complaint must be quite specific as to the underlying factual contentions. Thus, there is less of a risk that an anti-SLAPP motion will kick out legitimate cases, because the burden is already on the plaintiff to research the factual foundation of their complaint before filing suit. In contrast, federal civil procedure operates under a more recent "notice pleading" regime, in which a complaint need only include a "short and plain" notice of the claims to be asserted. This system offers plaintiffs the advantage of suing first and discovering the underlying facts later without having to worry about statutes of limitations (which is still a major problem with code pleading). But notice pleading also has a severe disadvantage in that allowing the use of an anti-SLAPP motion would result in the dismissal of many legitimate cases.

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has allowed California litigants to use their state's special motion in federal district courts located in California, in cases where the court is hearing at least one California state law claim through the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction.

[edit] Examples of SLAPPs

 This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can (December 2006).

Oprah Winfrey, as defendant, won a SLAPP filed against her by the cattle industry.[3]

Barbra Streisand, as plaintiff, lost a SLAPP she filed against an aerial photographer involved in the California Coastal Records Project. Streisand v. Adelman Et al, in California Superior Court; Case SC077257 [4][5]

Kim Shewalter and other neighborhood activists, as defendants, won a SLAPP brought by apartment building owners because of the defendants' protest activities. Coltrain v. Shewalter

Barry King and another Internet poster, as defendants, won a SLAPP brought by corporate plaintiffs based on critical posts on an Internet financial message board. Global Telemedia v. Does

Kathi Mills won a SLAPP filed against her by the Atlanta Humane Society, Atlanta Humane Society v. Mills, in Gwinnett County (Georgia) Superior Court; case 01-A-13269-1 [6]

The Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks lawsuit resulted in an injunction against Dynadot forcing it to "lock the wikileaks.org domain name",[7][8] although the cased was later dropped.

[edit] Further reading

  • George W. Pring and Penelope Canan, SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out (Temple University Press, 1996). ISBN 1-56639-369-8
  • Michelangelo Delfino and Mary E. Day, Be careful who you SLAPP (MoBeta Pub, 2002). ISBN 0-9725141-0-4
  • Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith, No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America (Random House, 1998). ISBN 0-375-75258-7

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] References

  1. ^ George W. Pring and Penelope Canan, SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out, (1996), 8-9.
  2. ^ See, e.g., Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (e) (3) and (e) (4).
  3. ^ Cf. Howard F. Lyman's Mad Cowboy, 14–20.
  4. ^ Streisand Sues to Suppress Free Speech Protection
  5. ^ Streisand’s Lawsuit to Silence Coastal Website Dismissed
  6. ^ Atlanta Humane Society settles lawsuit
  7. ^ http://wikileaks.cx/wiki/images/Dynadot-injunction.pdf
  8. ^ WikiLeak: Censorship threats from Lawyers Archives
Languages