Anti-slapp laws — Anti-SLAPP statutes: where a speech lawsuit can be cut short early

Anti-SLAPP laws exist to end one kind of case early. The case in question is a lawsuit filed to punish someone for speaking to the public or to the government. The label expands to strategic lawsuit against public participation. The literature credits the term to the researchers George W. Pring and Penelope Canan. Their work framed such suits as attacks on the right to petition, a right protected by the First Amendment. The mechanism matters to newsrooms and to ordinary commenters. These suits are built to be expensive. The reference entry lists the patterns: wide and needless demands for discovery, attempts to unmask anonymous critics, and appeals on minor points of law. In some instances the stated aim, per the record, is to drain defendants of their money. An early exit route is the counterweight. What does the motion actually do? In the United States, these statutes often work through a motion.

This excerpt comes from the named source. Read the original for the full reporting.