When investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr described being sued for defamation as feeling
“trapped inside the airless machinery of the legal process,” she captured the suffocating effect of
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) on journalists everywhere.
SLAPPs, wielded as tools of intimidation, aim to silence those who dare to report on powerful interests by burying them in costly, draining legal battles. For many journalists, the mere threat of a SLAPP is enough to chill their work. Going public feels risky; the lawyers behind SLAPP threats typically bully journalists into silence by insisting the very threat remains confidential, making the isolation feel complete.
But going public with a SLAPP threat can help turn the tables, exposing the legal machinery for
the abusive process that it is and helping others trapped within it to finally breathe. Public disclosure builds solidarity among journalists, raises awareness of SLAPPs, helps tailor solutions to the problem, and exposes those businessmen and politicians who habitually abuse the law to silence their critics.
By publicly disclosing SLAPP threats, journalists can show solidarity with others who have faced similar tactics. SLAPPs are meant to isolate the journalist and create a sense of fear and vulnerability. But when one journalist speaks out, this encourages others to do the same, creating a collective response to what is often a systemic problem. Solidarity helps to empower journalists, making it clear that they are not alone and that the profession will not be bullied into silence.
SLAPPs are widespread but largely hidden, as most come in the form of private threats rather than court cases, creating an illusion of rarity. When journalists go public about SLAPPs, they bring these threats into the open, increasing visibility and prompting civil society, the public, and legislators to recognize the need for action. Raising awareness is a vital first step toward ending SLAPPs as tools of intimidation.
Publicizing threats also provides valuable data to help shape more effective protections. If patterns emerge, showing that threats come disproportionately from specific law firms or industries, this can inform targeted reforms or legislative measures aimed at curbing SLAPP abuse. It also enables media organizations and press freedom advocates to design more precise support strategies, whether through legal assistance or public awareness campaigns.
A key decision when going public with a SLAPP threat is whether to identify the law firm, businessperson, or politician responsible. Publicly naming these parties can have significant impact, exposing repeat SLAPP offenders. Over time, patterns might reveal those most frequently responsible, creating additional pressure for them to change their approach.
Naming names feels risky to many journalists, who often hesitate for fear of retaliation or escalation. But there is strength in numbers: by speaking with colleagues, journalists may find the same individual is targeting multiple reporters, making a joint public response possible. Alternatively, a less direct approach—such as sharing statistics on received threats or adding a message like, “We’ve faced fifty lawsuit threats this year and remain resolute” can be impactful.
For those confident in their work, these threats might even serve as a badge of honor, raising awareness of SLAPPs without additional risk.
The media as a whole could do more as well. Outlets should write about the problem, urge law reform to end the abuse of defamation laws especially, and show public solidarity with their colleagues when they get sued.
Ultimately, this is about standing up to protect the journalistic profession and the role of the press as public watchdog.
When journalists stand together against threats and expose SLAPP tactics, they not only protect themselves and their colleagues, but they also safeguard the public’s right to know. By sharing their stories and showing resilience, journalists reinforce the truth that they are stronger together – and no amount of intimidation can silence their collective voice.
Guest blog written by Peter Noorlander, advisor to Reporters Shield and consultant on issues of free speech, civil society, social justice law and policy, and organisational development.
