Talk:Strategic lawsuit against public participation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Improvement Templates[edit]


originally placed in the section titled Balancing the Right of Access to the Courts[edit]

Gunns 20 - Wikipedia : Gunns Limited, a Timber and woodchip product company in Australia is sueing 17 individual activists, including Federal Greens Senator Bob Brown, as well as three not-for-profit environmental groups, for over 7.8 million dollars. Gunns claims that the defendants have sullied their reputation and caused them to lose profits, the defendants claim that they are simply protecting the environment. The defendants have become collectively known as the Gunns 20. It is widely believed that this move is intended to tie up these activists in court proceedings, during which time Gunns intend to build a Pulp Mill in northern Tasmania. The move is possibly also intended to scare off other activists... w:Gunns 20 --ErnMalley 16:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm guessing it would be sub judice to mention ongoing cases? I'm referring to this: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

would the lengthy UK MacDonalds libel case be one of these? -- Tarquin

Absolutely. Industry Vs Activists. Very important SLAPP suit although I don't believe it is called such in Britain. Ilena 02:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure how the Scientology cases warrant mention but no others do. Having examples of several organizations handing out SLAPPs would make much better for POV than reference to a single organization, especially one as controversial as scientology. -- 17:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, all their actions should be listed, but perhaps in their own special section.

Removed external links[edit]

I removed a few external links, which seemed to be part of an agenda-pushing, book-selling campaign across wikipedia. It seems like there are already a fair amount of external links for the California case, anyway.

kmccoy (talk) 08:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What separates SLAPP from a justified lawsuit?[edit]

I'd love to see further explanation what separates SLAPP from a justified lawsuit. Who determines, how?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Think of the SLAPP as a kind of special version of the demurrer. Anyway, if a judge really screws up and grants an anti-SLAPP dismissal they shouldn't have (that is, the lawsuit was legitimate and not merely to harass), then the plaintiff can always appeal and get the dismissal vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. --Coolcaesar 04:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good question. SLAPP's are typically intended to exhaust the resources of an activist or critic by corporate interests ... they are usually referred to as "meritless" cases. I was SLAPP sued by someone (Christopher Grell) whose name I had never even mentioned! Ilena 17:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an interesting statement. Are you not then saying that in every lawsuit listed on this page under the heading "SLAPP", the initial claims had merit, which must be the case if the lawsuit against them was meritless? Does the use of the word SLAPP anywhere automatically apply an explicit or implicit assertion that the initial accusations have merit? (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've tried to insert some thoughtful material on the perceptive question raised above by Kmcoy,on what separates SLAPP from a justified lawsuit. jvonkorff


This page seems to be entirely based on one website. That is giving it a large bias IMO. Ansell 08:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The bias seems not to be significant. The article just factually discusses the matter; while it has nothing positive about SLAPP, it as well has nothing negative. The overall picture is caused by the subject itself, not the article, so I think POV check template is not needed. However, I'll watch it in case there are objections or suggestions. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 09:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid I still see some POV issues here. The first sentence defines a "SLAPP" as a form of litigation used "to intimidate and silence a less powerful critic by so severely burdening them with the cost of a legal defense that they abandon their criticism." I think that is a accurate definition of SLAPPs. My concern is that the beginning of the article defines a SLAPP by making reference to the motives of the person or group who initiated the lawsuit, then gives "examples" of such behaviour below. This implies that the organizations that filed the lawsuits in the examples given did so with the intent to silence or intimidate critics, something I am sure they would dispute.
How about something like: "SLAPP is a label used to describe lawsuits that have the effect of intimidating or severely burdening..." etc.? The "examples" of SLAPP lawsuits could be "Legal action described as SLAPPs". The examples could then cite external sources that have described the legal actions as SLAPPs.
Loremipsum 22:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this article continues to have some POV or at least undue weight issues. I would not necessarily consider the statement "Anti-SLAPP laws are generally considered to have a favorable effect, and many lawyers have fought to enact stronger laws protecting against SLAPPs" to be true. Nogburt (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Examples of SLAPPs"[edit]

Purpose of a SLAPP lawsuit is - by definition - not (necessarily) to win, but to harass the defendant. Cattle industry v. Oprah Winfrey is not a good example of SLAPP: Oprah is not a "less powerful critic" (in fact, it would be hard to find a more powerful person on US television), nor she can be "severely burdened" by the cost of legal defense. GregorB 22:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I have read about Ms Winfrey and this suit, it was a classic SLAPP suit, intended to silence a strong critic. Her comment was quite offhand on her TV show. I believe it should be included. Good evening all. Ilena 01:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Winfrey example contradicts the description of SLAPP in the opening paragraph: " so severely burdening them with the cost of a legal defense that they abandon their criticism...". Either this example should be removed or the description be updated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
This is an important category. I'm going to suggest a few other good examples.
Barrett Vs Rosenthal ==

Classic internet SLAPP suit just decided in November, 2006 for the third of three plaintiffs. Industry vs Activist. (original link removed - Barrett v. Rosenthal is internal link to same topic) Ilena 01:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't have all the details at hand. The environmentalist writer, Peter Montague. SLAPPED Here's the outcome, Monsanto's Gaffey VS Montague [1] Ilena 02:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for protecting me from fyslee. I'm Rosenthal in this classic SLAPP suit and fyslee works directly with the Barrett. He treats Wikipedia like it's Barrett's "Healthfraud List" where he is Assistant Listmaster and Censurer with Barrett for several years. He censors people there and attempts to do the same here. He tries to bully me off and then claims he's "helping" me. Here is when he set up shop on Wikipedia. [2] You can see him advertising his sites with Barrett, and then claims he's attacked when I explain the same relationship. I am very interested and have a lot of experience with SLAPP suits, and fyslee will attempt to change everything I edit. Barrett Vs Rosenthal is a classic SLAPP suit.Have a lovely evening.02:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Just so that there's no confusion -- I am not protecting you, I am protecting the policies laid out in WP:TALK. I find many of your personal attacks to be unwelcome (such as your edit comment in this edit). I don't have enough knowledge of the dispute to have an opinion in the matter. I'm just reverting an edit that goes against policy. kmccoy (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My response to Ilena's continued personal atacks can be found here. -- Fyslee 10:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not convinced that the RIAA cases count as SLAPP cases. The RIAA isn't trying to suppress public comment as far as I know; they're trying to suppress file sharing. Efalk 05:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a more general objection to these examples. I don't see that they add anything significant to the article. The examples in the Canadian section are helpful because they illustrate the evolution of the SLAPP concept and of the changing anti-SLAPP legislation in that jurisdiction. The examples at the bottom of the page, though, just seem like a laundry list of "lawsuits accused of being SLAPPs" - neither easily provable nor particularly useful to our readers. As others have already said above, the categorization of a lawsuit as a SLAPP can be a somewhat subjective thing. Unless those examples can be integrated into the context of the rest of the article, I'd like to see them removed from the page. Rossami (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the Karen Winner case in South Carolina, USA:

...Winner, along with a psychologist/whistleblower, and several citizens were SLAPPed...

Who, besides presumably the retired judge were the plaintiffs? Dick Kimball (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

South African example[edit]

In this edit, an anonymous editor removed the entire example of the Anglo Platinum lawsuit with the comment that there is no indication that this was ruled a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

I don't know much about this particular case and don't know whether it was a good example of a SLAPP or not but I think the standard the anon used is incorrect. SLAPP is a general concept. A lawsuit can be a SLAPP whether or not it has been officially ruled as one. In fact, in jurisdictions without anti-SLAPP legislation, that's the only kind that exist.

Having said that, an assertion that a particular lawsuit is an example of a SLAPP does still require a source. Otherwise, we fail WP:NOR. I just don't believe that the source (if one exists) has to be an official ruling. Rossami (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

California's Anti-SLAPP Statute[edit]

I cleaned up the discussion of California's anti-SLAPP statute, based on my experience actually bringing the damn things.UberMitch (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Scientology is notorious for it's use of this tactic to suppress speech against their organization, indeed, it was the first thing I thought of when reading the introduction. I'm curious as to why it did not get a mention in the article itself. --HeroofTime55 (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please allow me to add:
 The purpose of [a lawsuit] is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass,
 and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will
 generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly. — L. Ron Hubbard
This is a quote (subsequently removed) from A Manual on the Dissemination of Material by the late Mr. Hubbard, the founder of Scientology.[1] Dick Kimball (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Changes to the structure[edit]

I feel this article is a mess, and is too U.S.-centric. Also, the banner saying "This section may require cleanup" has been on top of the "Notable anti-SLAPP cases" for more than two years. There is so little activity here, that I feel this is an orphaned page.

Anyways, here are my suggestions:

0) The definition is ok, although very narrow in scope. Is the Pring & Canan definition still relevant 20 years later?

1) I think it is very important that the U.S. origins of SLAPPS be put in a broader political & jurisdictional context, so that readers unfamiliar with the intricacies of the U.S legal system know what SLAPPS are all about. (Many SLAPPS or quasi-SLAPPS are now filed outside of the U.S. -- The contents of this section should be debated in a separate forum section, though.)

2) More could be said, right after the definition, about the numerous acronyms (SLAPPback, cyberSLAPP) and related concepts (chilling effect), and their relationship with SLAPPS. The "See also" section is a bit shallow right now.

3) The "Jurisdictional variations and history" section should be merged into the "Notable anti-SLAPP cases", or cleaned up. Info about California legislation et al. should be placed in 4)

4) An "Anti-SLAPP legislation" section should be added, with a clear breakdown of all safeguards and mechanisms (by country and state).

See the French page for a glimpse of what this page should become (IMHO). Paradis pe (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broader political and legal context[edit]

The "Broader political and legal context" section obviously needs more references, and to be reviewed by someone whose 1st language is English!

This is a shortened version of a paper I submitted during my LLM to human rights prof. Peter Leuprecht at Université du Québec à Montréal, which was received with great enthusiasm. In early 2007, that paper was also submitted to prof. Roderick A. MacDonald (McGill University), during a research commissioned by the Quebec Ministry of Justice.[1] Paradis pe (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ [| Les poursuites stratégiques contre la mobilisation publique – les poursuites-bâillons (SLAPP)], Rapport du comité au ministre de la Justice Montreal, March 15, 2007

Section titled "Broader political and legal context"[edit]

I have removed the entire section below pending discussion here. My concerns are:

  1. Clarity of grammar and writing style
  2. Much of the content appears to be speculative original research.

In particular, the allegation starting with "The reason for the rise of SLAPPs..." strains credulity. The acronym SLAPP is a relatively new phenomenon but the practice of using the legal system to intimidate has a history going back as far as courts have existed. The practice was well-understood and commonly practiced in, for example, the time of the robberbarons.

If there are pieces that can be cited and moved back into the article, please do so. Likewise, if someone can write a better and more coherent history of the concept, that would really improve the article. Rossami (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SLAPP lawsuits are usually filed in liberal democracies that have a fully-developed legal system and high standards of human rights protection. However, since constitutional and other human rights safeguards vary from country to country, the terminology of international law may help understand the issues at stake:

SLAPP lawsuits are directly related to civil and political rights, since defamations laws are used as a loophole against defendants' freedom of speech. Another frequent component of such lawsuits is the apparent lack of a fair trial, especially when plaintiffs are large corporations, and defendants are average citizens barely able to afford legal costs.

However, frontline advocates of economic, social and cultural rights, such as grassroots environmental organizations, are frequently targeted.

Since "All human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated"[1], stifling the expression of political opinions with regards to collective rights will inevitably impact the fulfillment of the latter.

The reason for the rise of SLAPPs may partly lie in in the post-1980 globalization process and neoliberal policies, where major economic development decisions are left to the private sector, and indebted states are no longer able or willing to defend their citizens' right to health, work, food, water and education—leaving this task up to NGOs, charities and other nonprofit organizations. Public policy thus ends up being debated between private (and unequal) stakeholders, rather than in the democratic arena.

History vs. current context and the human rights issue[edit]

I agree there is a need for a better History section, although this article is about SLAPPs -- not legal intimidation throughout the Ages. There is no need to trace the concept back to the robberbarons... I would suggest a better linkage with the term chilling effect, though.

What this article lacks is material for average, non-U.S. readers to understand. The term was coined in the U.S., where SLAPPS are seen as a threat to First Amendment rights. The term is now increasingly recognized in Canada, Australia, NZ and the UK. Sticking to U.S.-centric "legalese" doesn't help understanding how SLAPPs are evolving nowadays. Hence the international law terminology: fair trial, freedom of speech, civil and political rights in their most commonly accepted sense.

As to economic, social and cultural rights -- even though the U.S. does not give them much weight and hasn't yet ratified the ICESCR (alongside Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and a handful of other beacons of freedom) -- I think there is more than enough evidence that they are impacted by SLAPPs, albeit indirectly. The link with public health and environmental issues is obvious:

One of the most troubling developments in American public law over the last two decades has been the proliferation of lawsuits commenced and maintained for the purpose of "chilling" public participation in decision - making processes, particularly those affecting the environment. [...] Typically brought by corporate interests, these suits target citizens and citizen organizations for taking part in lawful demonstrations and boycotts, reporting health or environmental offences, circulating petitions, even for attending public meetings. (Chris Tollefson, "Strategic lawsuits and environmental politics: Daishowa Inc. v Friends of the Lubicon", [1996] Vol. 31, No 1 Journal of Canadian Studies

[...] SLAPPs are very much a Canadian phenomenon and have been initiated against consumers for public criticism of products or services as well as against individuals for advocating on environmental issues. (Susan Lott, "Report: Corporate Retaliation Against Consumers: The Status of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) in Canada" [2004] The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), page 5,

In short, the first part (up to "frequently targeted.") is not speculative. It is an attempt to better structure the article, from the general (definition, history and context) to the specific (country-specific cases and legislation). I hope the above references will convince you.

As to "The reason for the rise of SLAPPs...", I agree this is a rather speculative part. I'll need to find more references. My point here is that SLAPPS are more likely to appear in countries where economic development is driven by corporate forces, and where people tend to engage in non-traditional political activism rather than traditional (electoral) activism. In a socialist country (say, Cuba), you won't see one branch of the State SLAPPing another branch... A State doesn't sue itself.

--Paradis pe (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ UNGA, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of the World Conference on Human Rights, 25 June 1993, par. 5

An example needs clarification[edit]

I'm having trouble understanding the Karen Winter example. First, I think the word "but" shouldn't be there in "But in 1999...." Second, it seems pretty clear that Karen Winter is the defendant in a SLAPP suit, but the example isn't explicit on who the plantiff is. Where it says that she's still waiting to find something out from the judges, it's not clear whether she's waiting on the judges trying the case or on judges who are plantiffs. Can someone familiar with the case clarify the language? It's beyond my legal capability. CouldOughta (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Notable anti-SLAPP cases"[edit]

Added recent Nationwide Title case; an obvious SLAPP suit w/ links back to mainstream news organizations reporting about the cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't this section just be called "Notable SLAPP cases"? --zenohockey (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nonsense garbage on Edgar the Peaceful[edit]

Does anyone have any citations in support of that rambling, poorly drafted, misspelled section? It looks like typical vandalism by a homeless meth or coke addict editing Wikipedia at a public library. If no one produces citations soon, I'm reverting that garbage. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original research allegation against the section Balancing the Right of Access to the Courts[edit]

User:Xanzzibar has twice removed the entire subsection titled Balancing the Right of Access to the Courts, first with the comment "Remove section: original research and analysis without proper citations" and then with the comment that "Remove seciton again - it's original research and analysis. Lack of proper citation (all primary sources, a no-no) is just icing on the cake".

The section removal has been reverted twice, first by User:CliffC with the comment "some citations are present, although not in proper format - no need to scrap the section. Added two tags calling for improvement" and then by User:Rossami with the comment "revert again. That section is well-cited with a number of blockquotes. The citations are in the legal format, not Wikipedia's preferred in-line format but that's a minor point, not cause for deletion"

Since this is apparently a point of dispute, it should be discussed here. The disputed section can be seen in this diff. Rossami (talk)

In hindsight, my edit summary was not very helpful as it did not address Xanzzibar's concerns. I should have clarified that the fact that the section is so well cited is itself evidence that the text is not original research or analysis. The text is a synopsis and clarification of the original sources - a proper function for encyclopedic editors. That's not to say that the section is perfect. The closing paragraph probably does stray a bit into wording that is more advocacy-toned than it should be. But on the whole, those are correctable points. Wholesale removal is unwarranted in my opinion. Rossami (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a sidenote on the sourcing question, I think it is a debatable point whether a judge's findings are primary or secondary sources. I think the stronger argument is that the underlying facts of the case, the depositions and the various motions by the lawyers would be better considered as the primary sources and that the judge's conclusions start from those sources and add the analysis and evaluative claims that an encyclopedia or other tertiary source can properly report.
The Coucher & Kelly text also would not count as a primary source. Rossami (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text is clearly a new synthesis of facts and reasoning, some supported by citations, some not, in support of a position---that's what I do all the time as a lawyer. Unfortunately, you can't do that on Wikipedia. Wikipedia writing has to be coldly neutral. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing the McDonalds case[edit]

The example provided claimed that the McLibel case was an example of a SLAPP. Since this claim is unsourced and unverified it does not belong in this article. If sources can be found to state that it is a SLAPP, then the UK courts would be a notable source stating that it is not a SLAPP and the text should reflect this.

This relates to the US-centrism of the article. If the article is supposed to be US-centric (as it currently seems to be, also going by the lack of non-stub translations) then it should reflect this, and examples should note that they would be considered SLAPPs according to the US legal system but not by the foreign legal system. If it is supposed to represent a global world view then the views of US supreme court judges are no more notable than the view of any other supreme court judges in any other country, which can probably be easily extracted from libel cases in those countries and should be incorporated into the article.

I would suggest that, rather than the current philosophical and conceptual slant that incorporates mind-reading ('typical SLAPP plaintiff intends to / wants to (..)' the article is restyled to a "libel and freedom of speech around the world" or merged into something of that kind that describes what each country considers true libel, what each country considers SLAPP, and any relevant legislation. (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article rework[edit]

I just finished some rather extensive rework to the article, mostly citations and references. There should be no more embedded links or dead references. A lot of references were expanded (e.g., a ref with only a URL and a title getting the author, publisher, access date and so forth as appropriate, or as I thought so, anyway). Also, a number of references were researched and added where I could. I tried to convert the old style citation to use the appropriate templates. Also, several existing footnotes were moved to the recommended locations, mostly ends of the proper sentences when they were mid-sentence and there was no reason they needed to be. There was some Wikilinking added (and a little removed). There are a couple of citations still needed, which I marked with citation-needed templates.

I didn't do anything significant with content.

The citation template contents are formatted against the left margin because it was much easier to keep track of them and manage them that way. There's no reason to keep them in that format if the consensus is that they should be in the more conventional inline style. A quick pass with Perl can fix all, so if there's a problem there, fixing them manually would be a lot of needless effort.

Rhsimard (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Over the past 22 months, this article has gone down in quality, due to vandalism and soapboxen. Can we clean this up? The quality has started to slip, folks. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur, but it will be tricky to excise some of the messier passages. The problem is that the quality of Canadian law schools and lawyers are atrocious, which is why the passages on Canadian law are just awful. Most talented Canadian law students tend to pursue careers in law south of the border, so Canada gets stuck with the leftovers. I'm not sure there is any way to clean them up short of dumping them wholesale and starting over. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael Mann Defamation Lawsuit in SLAPP Cases[edit]

Michael Mann (Scientist) has been involved in a long running defamation case with SLAPP as a key procedural element Would it be worthwhile to add some reference to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SLAPPs against anti-harassment[edit]

There's a huge deal going on today in the library world (3rd on the below list) of someone using a SLAPP against women reporting sexual harassment or violence. None of these, AFAIK, involve famous people, and #3 is yet to be resolved. Would others here support a category in the article about SLAPPs intended to repress reports of sexual harassment? If so, I will add these in (from:

  • In January 2014, Open Source developer Michael Schwern sued his ex-wife for defamation, after being banned from tech events and disassociated from geek feminist endeavours subsequent to his arrest on domestic violence charges.
  • In the skeptic/atheist community, in February 2014 Ben Radford filed a defamation suit against Karen Stollznow for describing harassment she experienced (note that she did not name him, but others did in response to her post)
    • This case is proceeding and nobody has suggested that it is a SLAPP suit, much less has taken legal action to dismiss the case as a SLAPP. Wouldn't including this mean that nobody could sue for defamation without being accused of a SLAPP? MrStapler (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In July 2014, Canadian librarian and blogger Nina de Jesus tweeted "Fact: Yes, I'm being sued. Fact: I'm being sued for over a million dollars." in relation to this blog post about community accountability, naming "librarian and technology trend spotter" Joe Murphy as a serial harasser. In September 2014 the defendants posted an official statement.

Thanks, LaMona (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could anyone update the map? Virginia has passed an anti-SLAPP law as of this year. (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 DoneTerrorist96 (talk)


Could anyone update the map? Kansas passed an anti-SLAPP law in 2016. --- (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Philippines section.[edit]

I don't think the Lualhati Bautista entry for the Philippines counts. That case began with Bautista being accused of being a member of an armed group, the New People's Army. That's an accusation, not a criticism. If we accept that as an example, wouldn't we be opening this page up to the potential inclusion of all libel cases? - Sparryx (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well isn't saying that somebody "X libels" a form of libel to counter (rightfully or not) an accusation? --OPAZL (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fully agree with Sparryx. The entry is a poor example of SLAPP in the Philippines and does not belong in this article. The accusation made against Bautista falls under a pattern of Red-tagging in the Philippines, which is used to harass and silence activists and critics of the government. There is also the allegation that Bautista threatened to contact the employer, which none of the cited sources back up, making at least the part about the employer a violation of WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY. -Crisantom (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see no arguments to the contrary so far, so I move that the Philippines section, in its present (10 March 2021) form, be removed. - Sparryx (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I second that, for the reasons stated above: (i) that the current paragraph falls outside the scope of the article, and (ii) that parts of the paragraph go against WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY and therefore do not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Crisantom (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per BLP this qualifies for speedy deletion. It's been three days without any further objection on the matter. Following Sparryx's proposal, I will proceed with the passage's deletion per the above reasons. If anyone wishes to undelete the passage, they may do so but only after opening a discussion and reaching consensus on the talk page. Crisantom (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Passage has been deleted. Pasting the passage here per WP:Preserve. Crisantom (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

=== Philippines === On August 11, 2020, [[Lualhati Bautista]], a well-known Filipino author has been [[Red-tagging in the Philippines|tagged]] as a member of the [[New People's Army|New People’s Army]] (NPA) by a private Filipino citizen named ''Jefferson Lodia Badong'' in his comment on a Facebook post about the former. Bautista took to her own Facebook account and posted a screenshot of the comment. The post subsequently trended and attracted a huge number of supporters that attacked Badong, forcing him to write a public apology and make his account private. Bautista also issued a threat to Badong that she would contact his employers to cause him to lose his job. The [[Labor Code of the Philippines]] prohibits employers from removing an employee for reasons not directly relevant to their work, like a public figure like Bautista asking Badong's employers to fire him for his Facebook comment that are made outside the workplace. Further, it is by convention that the employee does not reflect his employer's opinions unless explicitly claimed.<ref></ref> Libel and cyberlibel law in the Philippines has historically only criminalized malicious publications of defamatory articles, as in the case of Keng v. Ressa.<ref></ref> Cyberlibel cannot be filed against private individuals who have no capacity to damage a person's reputation, as in the case of Badong's otherwise obscure Facebook comment. Badong later deleted the apology minutes after posting it. In another post, Bautista threatened to sue Badong for [[cyberlibel]] along with a screenshot of his profile. Bautista later said that she is not proceeding with the case as Badong has sent her a private apology, which was also publicized by Bautista. In the aftermath, Badong has deactivated his account after he was continually shamed by supporters and friends of Bautista.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-08-12|title=Facebook user deletes apology, changes profile name after drawing flak for red-tagging Filipino novelist|url=|access-date=2020-08-12|website=#PressOnePH|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Author Lualhati Bautista hits back at Facebook user over red-tagging post|url=|access-date=2020-08-12|website=Rappler|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Lualhati Bautista thanks Filipino netizens who helped shut down red-tagging commenter|url=|access-date=2020-08-12||language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Topics|first=Head|title=Author Lualhati Bautista hits back at Facebook user over red-tagging post|url=|access-date=2020-08-12|website=Head Topics|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=CoconutsManila|date=2020-08-12|title=Novelist Lualhati Bautista *literally* shuts down troll claiming she's a communist rebel {{!}} Coconuts Manila|url=|access-date=2020-08-12|website=Coconuts|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-08-14|title=Lualhati Bautista red-tagged by netizen; Award-winning author claps back|url=|access-date=2020-08-14|website=DailyPedia|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Lualhati Bautista red-tagged by netizen; Award-winning author claps back|url=|access-date=2020-08-15|}}</ref>

Rename as "Intimidation lawsuit"[edit]

It is a better primary name for the article. Strategic lawsuit against...seems very verbose and officialese.

"Intimidation lawsuits known officially as Strategic lawsuit against public participation are..."

Section titled 'Characteristics' needs work[edit]


Could someone who is comfortable with this subject please look at paragraph three of the section titled 'Characteristics' and rewrite it?

I'm a reasonably intelligent person with good language skills, but that paragaph is one long sentence, and I'm not entirely sure what it's trying to say. It can be interpreted in more than one way, and I'm having difficulty even working out which parts of the sentence go together, which are parts of a list, and whether there is more than one list in the sentence. Perhaps this would be a case for dot points being used.

I think if I knew the things that sentence was trying to convey, I wouldn't have trouble with it, so with that in mind, perhaps the person who edits it can get someone in their vacinity who doesn't know the subject to read their effort and explain it in their own words - if they can, it probably meets the needs of the average reader.


Mathsgirl (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]