"Memo to members Getting SLAPPed In all the debate about overuse of the courts, one area could use more public scrutiny. It's known by the acronym SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) suits, a term coined in the 1980s by professors George Pring and Penelope Canan of the University of Denver. The plaintiffs are likely to be businesses or industry groups. The defendents are likely to be critics of particular commercial activities, but they are not the only victims. Under attack is the constitutional protection of free speech and the right to petition the government.

Such lawsuits seek damages against a citizen or group based on something that was said or written, usually in the media or in a petition to the government, critical of the plaintiff's commercial activities. The issues involve public concerns, such as environmental damage, community health, and product safety.

Concern about SLAPP suits has loomed large for CU as we deal with major corporate litigation against us, based on our Not Acceptable ratings of two SUVs. Having prevailed against Isuzu Motors Ltd. after an eight-week trial and millions of dollars in costs, we now face a suit by the Suzuki Motor Corp., based on a reference to our test of its Samurai, published eight years after our original report and after the car was no longer on the U.S. market.

The best-known SLAPP-suit defendant is Oprah Winfrey, the talk-show host.

Winfrey, along with a staff member of the Humane Society of the U.S., was sued by Texas ranchers for expressing concern about the safety of U.S. beef. A federal appeals court upheld an earlier jury verdict in her favor.

But many SLAPP defendants are more obscure and vulnerable: individual citizens or small organizations. Defendants have included a group that published an ad criticizing carbon dioxide emissions, homeowners who filed a class-action lawsuit against a hazardous-waste facility, parents who voiced concerns about unsafe buses at a school-board meeting, and a TV station and its reporters for broadcasting on the dangers of dietary supplements with ephedrine.

In a SLAPP suit, an act of citizenship becomes a nightmare. The costs of extensive pretrial and trial proceedings can overwhelm a small group or an individual defendant and even spell financial disaster.

And therein lies the true motivation behind them. SLAPP suits can be thrown out of court under laws intended to protect the defendants. But even then, SLAPP suits can still succeed in stopping citizens and citizen organizations from petitioning and speaking on public issues--precisely the "chilling effect"

on debate and participation in public affairs the Bill of Rights was meant to protect against.

Citizens who speak out need comprehensive protection against SLAPP suits.

Some states offer it, but citizens need both statewide and federal measures.

This will help ensure that citizens continue to do democracy's most important work.

[SIGNED] Rhoda H. Karpatkin President"

Go Back