Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) pose a growing threat to freedom of expression, democratic accountability, and public participation worldwide. In our latest legal briefing, ARTICLE 19 analyses the concept, including the intersection between SLAPPs and gender, and urges states to adopt comprehensive anti-SLAPP frameworks grounded in international human rights law. Such frameworks must address […]
Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) pose a growing threat to freedom of expression, democratic accountability, and public participation worldwide. In our latest legal briefing, ARTICLE 19 analyses the concept, including the intersection between SLAPPs and gender, and urges states to adopt comprehensive anti-SLAPP frameworks grounded in international human rights law. Such frameworks must address power imbalances between litigants and provide safeguards against disproportionate sanctions and costs – so that the system supports those targeted by abusive litigation.
SLAPPs, typically brought by powerful actors against journalists, civil society organisations, academics, and activists, misuse civil and criminal litigation to intimidate critics, impose financial and psychological burdens, and create a chilling effect on speech on matters of public interest.
SLAPP is still an emerging term that is not necessarily used in the same manner across jurisdictions. Instead of advocating for the universality of the term, ARTICLE 19’s briefing focuses on the implementation of effective protections against abuses of law and procedure that curb public participation and exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and other associated rights.
SLAPPs do not emerge in isolation. They are intertwined with other types of assault on free speech: physical attacks and intimidation of journalists and civil society; prosecution under criminal defamation, insult, and other types of broad ‘speech offences’; and pervasive surveillance and online harassment, which often has a particularly adverse effect on minoritised communities and women. In particular gendered SLAPPs, targeting women journalists who cover gender-based violence, reproductive rights, and feminist issues, reinforce broader patterns of gender-based intimidation against women in the media sector and those working on human rights.
International human rights standards require states to protect freedom of expression not only against direct state interference but also against indirect restrictions arising from abusive private litigation.
Specifically, there is an urgent need for heightened protection of public-interest speech, scrutiny of power imbalances between litigants, and implementation of safeguards against disproportionate sanctions and costs that deter participation in public debate.
The EU, as well as certain US states and Canada, have adopted robust anti-SLAPP legislation providing early dismissal mechanisms, burden-shifting rules, and cost-shifting to deter abusive claims. However, globally, most jurisdictions lack tailored protections against SLAPPs and approach these actions through general procedural frameworks. The latter are often ill-equipped to effectively deal with the particularities of these cases.
In this context, ARTICLE 19 urges states to adopt comprehensive anti-SLAPP frameworks grounded in international human rights law. Key elements include early and efficient dismissal procedures, mandatory cost-shifting in favour of defendants, recognition of power imbalances, capacity-building of the justice system to effectively deal with the peculiarities of SLAPP claims, and access to remedies for those targeted by abusive litigation. Aligning domestic law with international standards is essential to ensuring that legal systems are not weaponised to silence public participation and dissent.…Read more by