FREEDOM CORNER: CT’s Anti-SLAPP Law Combats Lawsuits Aimed at Stifling Free Speech
A recent article for CT Inside Investigator (InsideInvestigator.org) articulates the importance of our First Amendment rights, discusses how powerful interests sometimes work to subvert those rights, and details how a CT Anti-SLAPP law protects those who exercise their rights. Author Katherine Revello explains:
“The First Amendment right to freedom of speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances are among the most fundamental rights Americans possess. But the free exercise of those rights is also vulnerable to litigation. Post a negative review of a business on a website like Yelp, write an op-ed in your local newspaper, testify during a government hearing—those are essential and protected First Amendment activities. But what you say there can make you the target of a lawsuit for defamation, libel or personal distress.
A certain type of lawsuit, known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) is designed to target protected First Amendment speech and other activities in an attempt to silence the speaker or punish them for carrying out a basic or essential service that may be related to their job.”
Some examples of SLAPP suits might include retaliatory suits against a journalist or his source for a story that is critical of an individual, or against a whistleblower who reports misconduct, or against individuals who have filed complaints with a public agency.
The Inside Investigator article quotes Zach Phillips, a Connecticut-based trial and appellate lawyer who works on cases involving civil liberties, saying “Generally, those lawsuits are not necessarily aimed at winning but as a form of punishment against the person for speaking out or petitioning the government in a way the plaintiff doesn’t like.”
“Sometimes those people [who are the subject of speech] will file a lawsuit and claim it’s defamatory. But it’s clearly targeted at speech they dislike.” explains Phillips.
“Such suits are designed to intimidate or harass a defendant and waste their time and resources with the cost and bother of litigation. They also tend to have a chilling effect on speech, both for the individual who is sued and for others who might be considering engaging in similar types of speech,” Revello writes.
In 2017, Connecticut passed an Anti-SLAPP law to protect individuals sued for protected First Amendment speech from the harm that can be caused by frivolous litigation.
Anti-SLAPP statutes protect the speaker not only from liability, but from the lawsuit process itself. The law creates a special motion to dismiss that puts a halt to the often-costly discovery process and terminates the suit if it is found to be aimed at punishing an individual for exercising his rights of free speech.
The Statute states:
“In any civil action in which a party files a complaint, counterclaim or cross claim against an opposing party that is based on the opposing party’s exercise of its right of free speech, right to petition the government, or right of association under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the state in connection with a matter of public concern, such opposing party may file a special motion to dismiss the complaint, counterclaim or cross claim.”
If the court grants a special motion to dismiss, the law directs it to award costs and attorney’s fees to the party who filed the special motion to dismiss. If the court denies the motion and deems it “frivolous and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay” the law directs it to award costs and attorney’s fees to the opposing party.
