The First Amendment of the United States Constitution explicitly states that the freedom of speech is an inalienable, constitutionally protected right. This right has been consistently redefined, particularly in regards to advances in technology. The Internet, since its inception, has posed as a vehicle for speech and expression, and user content-generated websites are a prime example of this. As of late this linchpin of our cultural lexicon has found itself in the crosshairs of a practice that intimidates citizens into silence: SLAPP lawsuits.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation as they are formally known, SLAPP lawsuits are nothing more than an intimidation tactic used by companies and private citizens attempting to silence voices via the Internet. Masquerading as defamation or slander, they have little to no legal merit. The purpose they serve is to intimidate, dissuade and otherwise bog down citizens with legal fees and processes rather than using the law to remedy an actual wrong.
This year saw everything from comics to churches ridden with the SLAPP happy fever. In one instance Matthew Inman’s comics were posted en mass without credit towards him on the website FunnyJunk. Inman then penned a blog post protesting this unauthorized usage of his comics. FunnyJunk then lambasted Inman with a defamation lawsuit citing $20,000 in damages. Inman then distributed the meritless letter around the Internet and collected $200,000 in donations to fight the looming legal battle. However, Inman chose to donate this money to charity, and FunnyJunk soon begrudgingly dropped their ill-founded intimidation lawsuit.
This tit-for-tat behavior is expected among the world of commerce, but came as a surprise when a Beaverton Oregon Church filed a SLAPP suit against their fellow brothers and sisters in the faith. Former estranged church members had commented on their experience at Grace Bible Church by writing online reviews. Grace Church in response opted out of turning the other cheek and instead turned around and filed suit. The difference in this case is it’s setting in Oregon, a state with anti-SLAPP laws. The judge recognized the puffery, and accordingly dismissed the case and saddled Grace with the defendant’s legal fees.
Close to 50 percent of states don’t have any anti-SLAPP statues, which leads to long and messy legal battles in which the SLAPPs are stifling the freedom of speech. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has joined with consumer review based Yelp to battle SLAPPs. The goal is to achieve federal anti-SLAPP legislation, which is something both sides of the aisle can get behind even in todays widespread policy gridlock. Conservative Texas and anything goes California have both passed laws confronting the encroachment upon freedom of speech that SLAPPs represent.
As the law currently stands, websites that facilitate posting comments and reviews are themselves immune from SLAPP suits. Thus, corporations are squaring off with everyday consumers who were unaware that simply commenting on a product online could land them a lawsuit from multi-million dollar companies. Instead of staring into the deep pockets of corporate America, many choose forfeiture of one of their most meaningful and essential constitutional rights, the freedom of speech.
Supporting anti-SLAPP federal legislation is one step of a complex samba that is adapting our nation’s laws and legal climate to the conundrum the Internet presents. The world of SLAPP lawsuits is multifaceted, but let this warping of the U.S. legal system not serve not as an excuse to stifle speech, but rather as a uniting force towards the preservation of liberty and justice for all.
Whitney Greer is a sophomore English major from Medford, Ore.
