The first amendment of the United States of America protects journalists when reporting on topics that some may find offensive or unfavorable. “It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.” This freedom allows for many differing opinions which may be legally expressed by an individual.
I believe that weaponized defamation lawsuits against members of the media are indeed concerning. “All opinions that rely on underlying facts, however, are not necessarily outside the opinion privilege. If you state the facts on which you are basing your opinion, and the opinion you state could be reasonably drawn from those truthful facts, you will be protected even if your opinion turns out to be incorrect.”. Opinions are protected free speech, as stated by the First Amendment. What was stated to not be protected within the law is reporting based on actual malice. This definition was spelled out on March 9th, 1964 in the landmark ruling of the defamation case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, stating that “The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice’ – that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” (The New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964).
Anti-SLAPP statutes work to protect the First Amendment Rights for media outlets and the press. “Short for strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPPs have become an all-too-common tool for intimidating and silencing criticism through expensive, baseless legal proceedings. Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide a remedy to SLAPP suits. Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights. In terms of reporting, news organizations and individual journalists can use anti-SLAPP statutes to protect themselves from the financial threat of a groundless defamation case brought by a subject of an enterprise or investigative story.”
These statutes greatly protect reporters in the media that cover a wide range of stories, some expressing ideas and opinions that not everyone might find favorable.
Presently, over half of the United States have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes. “To guard against the chilling effect of SLAPPs, twenty-eight states, the District of Columbia, and one U.S. territory have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes. The U.S. jurisdictions with anti-SLAPP statutes are: Arizona; Arkansas; California; Delaware; District of Columbia; Florida; Guam; Georgia; Hawaii; Illinois; Indiana; Louisiana; Maine; Maryland; Massachusetts; Minnesota; Missouri; Nebraska; Nevada; New Mexico; New York; Oklahoma; Oregon; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; Tennessee; Texas; Utah; Vermont; and Washington. Some other states’ courts (notably Colorado and West Virginia) have recognized anti-SLAPP-like protection as a matter of case law.”
A counterargument that a plaintiff can make in a theoretical defamation lawsuit circles back around to proving actual malice. SLAPP suits, again standing for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, “aren’t filed to win, or even to collect settlement damages. Instead, they are supposed to scare the people being sued. [former]-President Donald Trump summed it up well in 2011, talking about a lawsuit he filed against an author and publishing company he said underestimated his net worth: “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”
Freedom of speech and expression is worth protecting and defending, and anti-SLAPP statutes protect those that are bullied through legal channels by those with more financial privilege that want to silence their critics.
