Talk:Strategic lawsuit against public participation

message: I removed a few external links, which seemed to be part of an agenda-pushing, book-selling campaign across wikipedia.  It seems like there are already a fair amount of external links for the California case, anyway.  
* Varian SLAPP The "quintessential SLAPP."
* Be Careful Who You SLAPP — The  book about Internet SLAPPs.
kmccoy (talk) 08:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed external links 

message: I'd love to see further explanation what separates SLAPP from a justified lawsuit. Who determines, how?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.197.89 (talk • contribs) 
:Think of the SLAPP as a kind of special version of the demurrer.  Anyway, if a judge really screws up and grants an anti-SLAPP dismissal they shouldn't have (that is, the lawsuit was legitimate and not merely to harass), then the plaintiff can always appeal and get the dismissal vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.  --Coolcaesar 04:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. SLAPP's are typically intended to exhaust the resources of an activist or critic by corporate interests ... they are usually referred to as "meritless" cases. I was SLAPP sued by someone (Christopher Grell) whose name I had never even mentioned! Ilena 17:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an interesting statement. Are you not then saying that in every lawsuit listed on this page under the heading "SLAPP", the initial claims had merit, which must be the case if the lawsuit against them was meritless? Does the use of the word SLAPP anywhere automatically apply an explicit or implicit assertion that the initial accusations have merit? 92.40.49.146 (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What separates SLAPP from a justified lawsuit?

message: In this edit, an anonymous editor removed the entire example of the Anglo Platinum lawsuit with the comment that there is no indication that this was ruled a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
I don't know much about this particular case and don't know whether it was a good example of a SLAPP or not but I think the standard the anon used is incorrect.  SLAPP is a general concept.  A lawsuit can be a SLAPP whether or not it has been officially ruled as one.  In fact, in jurisdictions without anti-SLAPP legislation, that's the only kind that exist.
Having said that, an assertion that a particular lawsuit is an example of a SLAPP does still require a source.  Otherwise, we fail WP:NOR.  I just don't believe that the source (if one exists) has to be an official ruling.  Rossami (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  South African example 

message: I cleaned up the discussion of California's anti-SLAPP statute, based on my experience actually bringing the damn things.UberMitch (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: California's Anti-SLAPP Statute

message: I feel this article is a mess, and is too U.S.-centric. Also, the banner saying "This section may require cleanup" has been on top of the "Notable anti-SLAPP cases" for more than two years. There is so little activity here, that I feel this is an orphaned page.
Anyways, here are my suggestions:
0) The definition is ok, although very narrow in scope. Is the Pring & Canan definition still relevant 20 years later?
1) I think it is very important that the U.S. origins of SLAPPS be put in a broader political & jurisdictional context, so that readers unfamiliar with the intricacies of the U.S legal system know what SLAPPS are all about. (Many SLAPPS or quasi-SLAPPS are now filed outside of the U.S. -- The contents of this section should be debated in a separate forum section, though.)
2) More could be said, right after the definition, about the numerous acronyms (SLAPPback, cyberSLAPP) and related concepts (chilling effect), and their relationship with SLAPPS. The "See also" section is a bit shallow right now.
3) The "Jurisdictional variations and history" section should be merged into the "Notable anti-SLAPP cases", or cleaned up. Info about California legislation et al. should be placed in 4)
4) An "Anti-SLAPP legislation" section should be added, with a clear breakdown of all safeguards and mechanisms (by country and state).
See the French page for a glimpse of what this page should become (IMHO). Paradis pe (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the structure 

message: The "Broader political and legal context" section obviously needs more references, and to be reviewed by someone whose 1st language is English!
This is a shortened version of a paper I submitted during my LLM to human rights prof. Peter Leuprecht at Université du Québec à Montréal, which was received with great enthusiasm. In early 2007, that paper was also submitted to prof. Roderick A. MacDonald (McGill University), during a research commissioned by the Quebec Ministry of Justice.[| Les poursuites stratégiques contre la mobilisation publique – les poursuites-bâillons (SLAPP)], Rapport du comité au ministre de la Justice Montreal, March 15, 2007 Paradis pe (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broader political and legal context 

message: I have removed the entire section below pending discussion here.  My concerns are:
# Clarity of grammar and writing style
# Much of the content appears to be speculative original research.
In particular, the allegation starting with "The reason for the rise of SLAPPs..." strains credulity.  The acronym SLAPP is a relatively new phenomenon but the practice of using the legal system to intimidate has a history going back as far as courts have existed.  The practice was well-understood and commonly practiced in, for example, the time of the robberbarons.
If there are pieces that can be cited and moved back into the article, please do so.  Likewise, if someone can write a better and more coherent history of the concept, that would really improve the article.  Rossami (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section titled "Broader political and legal context" 

message: I agree there is a need for a better History section, although this article is about SLAPPs -- not legal intimidation throughout the Ages. There is no need to trace the concept back to the robberbarons... I would suggest a better linkage with the term chilling effect, though.
What this article lacks is material for average, non-U.S. readers to understand. The term was coined in the U.S., where SLAPPS are seen as a threat to First Amendment rights. The term is now increasingly recognized in Canada, Australia, NZ and the UK. Sticking to U.S.-centric "legalese" doesn't help understanding how SLAPPs are evolving nowadays. Hence the international law terminology: fair trial, freedom of speech, civil and political rights in their most commonly accepted sense.
As to economic, social and cultural rights -- even though the U.S. does not give them much weight and hasn't yet ratified the ICESCR (alongside Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and a handful of other beacons of freedom) -- I think there is more than enough evidence that they are impacted by SLAPPs, albeit indirectly. The link with public health and environmental issues is obvious:
One of the most troubling developments in American public law over the last two decades has been the proliferation of lawsuits commenced and maintained for the purpose of "chilling" public participation in decision - making processes, particularly those affecting the environment. [...] Typically brought by corporate interests, these suits target citizens and citizen organizations for taking part in lawful demonstrations and boycotts, reporting health or environmental offences, circulating petitions, even for attending public meetings. (Chris Tollefson, "Strategic lawsuits and environmental politics: Daishowa Inc. v Friends of the Lubicon", [1996] Vol. 31, No 1 Journal of Canadian Studies http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3683/is_199604/ai_n8736782)
[...] SLAPPs are very much a Canadian phenomenon and have been initiated against consumers for public criticism of products or services as well as against individuals for advocating on environmental issues. (Susan Lott, "Report: Corporate Retaliation Against Consumers: The Status of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) in Canada" [2004] The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), page 5, http://www.piac.ca/files/slapps.pdf)
In short, the first part (up to "frequently targeted.") is not speculative. It is an attempt to better structure the article, from the general (definition, history and context) to the specific (country-specific cases and legislation). I hope the above references will convince you.
As to "The reason for the rise of SLAPPs...", I agree this is a rather speculative part. I'll need to find more references. My point here is that SLAPPS are more likely to appear in countries where economic development is driven by corporate forces, and where people tend to engage in non-traditional political activism rather than traditional (electoral) activism. In a socialist country (say, Cuba), you won't see one branch of the State SLAPPing another branch... A State doesn't sue itself.
--Paradis pe (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History vs. current context and the human rights issue 

message: I'm having trouble understanding the Karen Winter example.  First, I think the word "but" shouldn't be there in "But in 1999...."  Second, it seems pretty clear that Karen Winter is the defendant in a SLAPP suit, but the example isn't explicit on who the plantiff is.  Where it says that she's still waiting to find something out from the judges, it's not clear whether she's waiting on the judges trying the case or on judges who are plantiffs.  Can someone familiar with the case clarify the language?  It's beyond my legal capability. CouldOughta (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  An example needs clarification 

message: Added recent Nationwide Title case; an obvious SLAPP suit w/ links back to mainstream news organizations reporting about the cases.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.209.9 (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notable anti-SLAPP cases" 

message: Does anyone have any citations in support of that rambling, poorly drafted, misspelled section?  It looks like typical vandalism by a homeless meth or coke addict editing Wikipedia at a public library.  If no one produces citations soon, I'm reverting that garbage.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense garbage on Edgar the Peaceful 

message: User:Xanzzibar has twice removed the entire subsection titled Balancing the Right of Access to the Courts, first with the comment "Remove section: original research and analysis without proper citations" and then with the comment that "Remove seciton again - it's original research and analysis. Lack of proper citation (all primary sources, a no-no) is just icing on the cake".
The section removal has been reverted twice, first by User:CliffC with the comment "some citations are present, although not in proper format - no need to scrap the section. Added two tags calling for improvement" and then by User:Rossami with the comment "revert again. That section is well-cited with a number of blockquotes. The citations are in the legal format, not Wikipedia's preferred in-line format but that's a minor point, not cause for deletion"
Since this is apparently a point of dispute, it should be discussed here.  The disputed section can be seen in this diff.  Rossami (talk)
: In hindsight, my edit summary was not very helpful as it did not address Xanzzibar's concerns.  I should have clarified that the fact that the section is so well cited is itself evidence that the text is not original research or analysis.  The text is a synopsis and clarification of the original sources - a proper function for encyclopedic editors.  That's not to say that the section is perfect.  The closing paragraph probably does stray a bit into wording that is more advocacy-toned than it should be.  But on the whole, those are correctable points.  Wholesale removal is unwarranted in my opinion.  Rossami (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As a sidenote on the sourcing question, I think it is a debatable point whether a judge's findings are primary or secondary sources.  I think the stronger argument is that the underlying facts of the case, the depositions and the various motions by the lawyers would be better considered as the primary sources and that the judge's conclusions start from those sources and add the analysis and evaluative claims that an encyclopedia or other tertiary source can properly report.   The Coucher & Kelly text also would not count as a primary source.  Rossami (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The text is clearly a new synthesis of facts and reasoning, some supported by citations, some not, in support of a position---that's what I do all the time as a lawyer.  Unfortunately, you can't do that on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia writing has to be coldly neutral. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research allegation against the section Balancing the Right of Access to the Courts 

message: The example provided claimed that the McLibel case was an example of a SLAPP. Since this claim is unsourced and unverified it does not belong in this article. If sources can be found to state that it is a SLAPP, then the UK courts would be a notable source stating that it is not a SLAPP and the text should reflect this.
This relates to the US-centrism of the article. If the article is supposed to be US-centric (as it currently seems to be, also going by the lack of non-stub translations) then it should reflect this, and examples should note that they would be considered SLAPPs according to the US legal system but not by the foreign legal system. If it is supposed to represent a global world view then the views of US supreme court judges are no more notable than the view of any other supreme court judges in any other country, which can probably be easily extracted from libel cases in those countries and should be incorporated into the article. 
I would suggest that, rather than the current philosophical and conceptual slant that incorporates mind-reading ('typical SLAPP plaintiff  intends to / wants to (..)' the article is restyled to a "libel and freedom of speech around the world" or merged into something of that kind that describes what each country considers true libel, what each country considers SLAPP, and any relevant legislation.86.6.44.128 (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the McDonalds case 

message: I just finished some rather extensive rework to the article, mostly citations and references.  There should be no more embedded links or dead references. A lot of references were expanded (e.g., a ref with only a URL and a title getting the author, publisher, access date and so forth as appropriate, or as I thought so, anyway).  Also, a number of references were researched and added where I could.  I tried to convert the old style citation to use the appropriate templates. Also, several existing footnotes were moved to the recommended locations, mostly ends of the proper sentences when they were mid-sentence and there was no reason they needed to be. There was some Wikilinking added (and a little removed).  There are a couple of citations still needed, which I marked with citation-needed templates.
I didn't do anything significant with content.
The citation template contents are formatted against the left margin because it was much easier to keep track of them and manage them that way. There's no reason to keep them in that format if the consensus is that they should be in the more conventional inline style.  A quick pass with Perl can fix all, so if there's a problem there, fixing them manually would be a lot of needless effort.
Rhsimard (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rework 

message: Over the past 22 months, this article has gone down in quality, due to vandalism and soapboxen.  Can we clean this up?  The quality has started to slip, folks. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, but it will be tricky to excise some of the messier passages.  The problem is that the quality of Canadian law schools and lawyers are atrocious, which is why the passages on Canadian law are just awful.  Most talented Canadian law students tend to pursue careers in law south of the border, so Canada gets stuck with the leftovers. I'm not sure there is any way to clean them up short of dumping them wholesale and starting over. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Michael Mann (Scientist)  has been involved in a long running defamation case with SLAPP as a key procedural
element  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#Defamation_lawsuit.  Would it be worthwhile to
add some reference to this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.188.142 (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Mann Defamation Lawsuit in SLAPP Cases 

message: There's a huge deal going on today in the library world (3rd on the below list) of someone using a SLAPP against women reporting sexual harassment or violence. None of these, AFAIK, involve famous people, and #3 is yet to be resolved. Would others here support a category in the article about SLAPPs intended to repress reports of sexual harassment? If so, I will add these in (from: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/SLAPP)
*In January 2014, Open Source developer Michael Schwern sued his ex-wife for defamation, after being banned from tech events and disassociated from geek feminist endeavours subsequent to his arrest on domestic violence charges.
*In the skeptic/atheist community, in February 2014 Ben Radford filed a defamation suit against Karen Stollznow for describing harassment she experienced (note that she did not name him, but others did in response to her post)
**This case is proceeding and nobody has suggested that it is a SLAPP suit, much less has taken legal action to dismiss the case as a SLAPP. Wouldn't including this mean that nobody could sue for defamation without being accused of a SLAPP? MrStapler (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  SLAPPs against anti-harassment 

message: Could anyone update the map? Kansas passed an anti-SLAPP law in 2016. --- 68.103.140.206 (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kansas 

message: I don't think the Lualhati Bautista entry for the Philippines counts. That case began with Bautista being accused of being a member of an armed group, the New People's Army.  That's an accusation, not a criticism.  If we accept that as an example, wouldn't we be opening this page up to the potential inclusion of all libel cases? - Sparryx (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no arguments to the contrary so far, so I move that the Philippines section, in its present (10 March 2021) form, be removed. - Sparryx (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second that, for the reasons stated above: (i) that the current paragraph falls outside the scope of the article, and (ii) that parts of the paragraph go against WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY and therefore do not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Crisantom (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Passage has been deleted. Pasting the passage here per WP:Preserve. Crisantom (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Philippines section. 

message: Hi,
Could someone who is comfortable with this subject please look at paragraph three of the section titled 'Characteristics' and rewrite it?
I'm a reasonably intelligent person with good language skills, but that paragaph is one long sentence, and I'm not entirely sure what it's trying to say.  It can be interpreted in more than one way, and I'm having difficulty even working out which parts of the sentence go together, which are parts of a list, and whether there is more than one list in the sentence.  Perhaps this would be a case for dot points being used.
I think if I knew the things that sentence was trying to convey, I wouldn't have trouble with it, so with that in mind, perhaps the person who edits it can get someone in their vacinity who doesn't know the subject to read their effort and explain it in their own words - if they can, it probably meets the needs of the average reader.
Thanks!
Mathsgirl (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section titled 'Characteristics' needs work 

message: Note: Moved from article
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
*  --  Otr500 (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible future sources