Town
of Christiansburg Public Information: Town Information
Town
of Christiansburg Public Information:
TOWN
OF |
S.L.A.P.P.STRATEGIC LAWSUITS AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONFROM WIKIPEDIAA Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a lawsuit or a threat of lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. According to New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella, "Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined." A number of jurisdictions have made such suits illegal, provided that the appropriate standards of journalistic responsibility have been met by the critic. The acronym was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring. The term 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."What does California have that Virginia doesn't ... but should have? S.L.A.P.P. PROTECTION!!!! From Wikipedia: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. 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. 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 operates 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. If you are named in a SLAPP suit, you may be in pretty good company (From Wikipedia)Oprah Winfrey, as defendant, won a SLAPP filed against her by the cattle industry. 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 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 case was later dropped. NOLO provides this definition of a SLAPP:SLAPP suit A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, in which a corporation or developer sues an organization in an attempt to scare it into dropping protests against a corporate initiative. SLAPP suits typically involve the environment--for example, local residents who are petitioning to change zoning laws to prevent a real estate development might be sued in a SLAPP suit for interference with the developer's business interests. Many states have "anti-SLAPP suit" statutes that protect citizens' rights to free speech and to petition the government.
|
CAMBRIA HISTORIC DISTRICT | |
CHRISTIANSBURG (CAMBRIA) DEPOT | |
CAMBRIA & ENVIRONS | |
HISTORIC
DISTRICTS & HISTORIC PRESERVATION | |
FOIA | |
SLAPP
SUITS | |
Web
published by Dorsett Publications, LLC
Historic Cambria Depot
Questions
or comments: Cambria Historian
Last Updated: 2 November, 2008
