Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or SLAPP suits are frivolous lawsuits intended to unjustly stifle free and protected speech and criticism. Many SLAPP suits involve real estate issues or zoning and land questions. But they can also involve criticism of public employees, public officials, or cases concerning the environment, animal rights or consumer protection. They are not filed to seek justice; they are filed to cause damage to the defendant. Even when SLAPP suits don’t win in court — as they often don’t — they are still effective, as they waste time and resources for the defendant. They cause damage to those being targeted by them through heavy legal costs and extensions of damage through discovery requests, appeals, and other legal means. They are often considered a form of legal harassment and retaliation against critics and watchdogs, and they happen frequently.
It was surprising to learn that Ohio does not have an anti-SLAPP statute, an important measure to uphold the First Amendment and protect legitimate speech and criticism, on the books as the majority of states do. Adopting such a statute would be a significant step in protecting freedom of speech in Ohio and would provide an example for the other states that do not have an anti-SLAPP law. Ohio should adopt an anti-SLAPP statute to protect freedom of speech in the state.
SLAPP suits cause significant damage to people and parties such as journalists, newspapers, nonprofits, activists, and others, as they are burdened with legal costs, time, and energy spent dealing with the lawsuit. SLAPP suits are frequently filed by wealthy and powerful people and corporations who do not have to worry about these burdens. They also waste the time and resources of judges, court systems, and attorneys that have to deal with these frivolous cases when they have more important, legitimate cases to hear.
Some of the most frequent targets of SLAPP suits are journalists, as well as watchdogs — those who watch to make sure firms and governments do nothing wrong — and whistleblowers, also known as informants. Their reporting or speech on an important topic of public interest, if it is critical, may be the target of a frivolous suit to silence journalism and coverage thereof. For example, if a journalist is reporting on the practices of a prominent company and the reporting is critical, a firm might file a meritless lawsuit against the journalist or newspaper to silence the coverage. The consequences of lawsuits are effective deterrents to critical journalism.
Activists are also frequent targets of SLAPP suits, almost certainly when their activism goes against the subsequent plaintiff. Say activists are protesting against a company or prominent individual in a legally protected and peaceful manner. The subsequent plaintiff would file a meritless suit against the activists in the same manner as journalists to silence them.
Additionally, they are sometimes used to target individual people who speak publicly or online. Critics and informants may become the target of frivolous SLAPP suits intended to silence and punish them. Any critical or informant party may be targeted by meritless lawsuits. Having protections for individual people from SLAPP suits would prevent such damage and threats.
Whistleblowers or informants, are another likely target of SLAPP suits, as meritless litigation is an effective tool to silence them after they report misconduct and malpractice. Anti-SLAPP laws are necessary to protect whistleblowers from the legal backlash of SLAPP suits.
Even the threat of a SLAPP suit can sufficiently intimidate people and deter free and protected speech and criticism protected by the First Amendment. Having protections in the form of an anti-SLAPP law would eliminate the legitimacy of such threats and allow people to more freely exercise their rights to speak out and write.
As a result of the damaging nature of SLAPP suits and their silencing effect on freedom of speech, 33 states and Washington, D.C. have anti-SLAPP laws. However, 17 states — including Ohio, Michigan, and West Virginia — do not have an anti-SLAPP law . Additionally, there is no anti-SLAPP law at the federal level. As a result, plaintiffs can file lawsuits in one of the 17 states without an anti-SLAPP law regardless of whether they live there or not. This allows the damage of SLAPP suits and their prospect to continue even when they are prohibited in most states.
Anti-SLAPP laws vary by state. They generally will allow for quick dismissal of a legal claim if it is determined to be frivolous. States such as Tennessee — which has one of the strongest anti-SLAPP laws in the country — will also require plaintiffs to pay the defendant’s legal costs if the claim against them is deemed meritless. Ohio should adopt a similar law to protect freedom of speech and public discourse.
The need for anti-SLAPP laws does not eliminate personal responsibility or legitimate claims. Individuals, journalists, firms, and organizations still need to be mindful of what they say and do and are still ultimately responsible for their actions. These parties should still be mindful of important facts related to what they are speaking about or covering or what they are speaking out against. As such, anti-SLAPP laws should still allow for protection for legitimate claims of defamation while deterring frivolous SLAPP suits.
Ohio and every other unprotected state should adopt an anti-SLAPP law to protect freedom of speech and likely targets of meritless claims. An anti-SLAPP law would prevent people and relevant actors, including powerful people and corporations, from abusing the court system to silence legitimate criticism and speech.
