SLAPP suits. I just heard about the term a month ago while I was attending to the application of a friend for MCLE at the UP LAW CENTER. A quick search in the internet revealed to me what it stood for.
SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or lawsuits aimed at squelching speech and involvement in government. Many states, including California, have anti-SLAPP statutes allowing one who has been targeted by a SLAPP to sue back.
It appears that in the United States, there were several instances where people have filed criminal and civil suits in response to public criticisms. To have a clearer appreciation of SLAPP suits, we take the case of Libel. In libel, TRUTH is ordinarily not a defense to a libelous imputation. Hence, this fact has been taken advantage of by rich individuals and corporations to stifle free speech.
With the advent of the internet, SLAPP suits for expressions made online, have become en vogue. Chillingeffects.org has this to say:
With the advent of the internet, SLAPP suits for expressions made online, have become en vogue. Chillingeffects.org has this to say:
Online, SLAPP suits typically involve a person who has posted anonymous criticisms of a corporation or public figure on the Internet. The target of the criticism then files a lawsuit so they can issue a subpoena to the Web site or Internet Service Provider (ISP) involved and thereby discover the identity of their anonymous critic. Many SLAPPers stop after discovering their critic's identity, using the tactic to intimidate or silence online speakers even though they were engaging in protected expression under the First Amendment. (
SLAPP suits have been so rampant in the United States that some States have special statutes on SLAPP. Wikipedia describes one statute:
The U.S. state of California enacted Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 in 1992, a statute intended to frustrate SLAPPs by providing a quick and inexpensive defense. 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.
Most of us have been blogging recently about expressions made online particularly facebook. We saw as a victory of a student in the US who prevailed against his teacher in a civil suit in Court. In my view, the same ruling should be made even if the proceeding is other than criminal and civil since the chilling effect is the same.
Currently, there are discussions in the Law Center regarding these SLAPP suits. I surmise that the end view of these discussions is our very own anti-SLAPP law here in the Philippines.
In my view however, there is no need for a SLAPP legislation here. The rights of free speech are constitutional rights. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court may promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. Certainly, free speech is a constitutional right.
ENTRY NO. 16
BRYAN A. SAN JUAN
No comments:
Post a Comment