SLAPPS (an acronym coined in North America that stands for “Strategic Litigation against Public Participation) are a strategic litigation tool where legal claims are threatened or brought against journalists and activists, with the aim of preventing or restricting the publication of their public interest journalism.

These sorts of threats are commonly made by commercial businesses and their owners as well as by politicians. 

Often the aim is not so much to win the case or get a remedy, but to isolate, intimidate, silence or discourage criticism or opposition.

Such lawsuits can have a “chilling” effect and stifle speech, criticism and opposition and can be dragged out for years before trial, inflicting financial, emotional and reputational damage on the journalists, NGOs and human rights defendants who are subject to them. 

It is important that journalists and human rights defenders are aware of the dangers SLAPP suits can pose to their journalism.

Being aware can help ensure that strong public interest stories and investigations get published.

There’s no easy solution to stop a SLAPP being brought, but here’s some tips to help try to avoid SLAPP suits. 

• The legal grounds most likely to be used to threaten a SLAPP suit are defamation, protest laws, copyright and trademark, whistleblowing, commercial and official secrets, and data protection. Make sure you understand these laws in your country and in any country where your story will be impactful. 
• Think carefully about what you are going to publish and the language you will use. Resist any temptation to use inflammatory language or to exaggerate. 
• Make sure you have the necessary evidence to support what you are going to publish.  
• Make sure your journalism is in the public interest. This will likely include reporting on matters relating to the public life of your community and those who take part in it, activities such as the conduct of government and political life, elections, and public administration, as well as the governance of public bodies, institutions and companies and those who run them. Art 3.2 of the recent EU Anti-SLAPP Directive provides some helpful examples of what might be in the public interest. 
• If you are publishing something that is likely to be disputed or controversial, where you can, think about asking a lawyer in the relevant country to look it over.
• If you don’t have access to a lawyer, CASE (the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe) provide some useful resources on how to identify and prevent a SLAPP.  
• Where possible, it is good practice to send before publication a right to reply (invitation to comment) to anyone who is to be the subject of criticism, setting out what that criticism is likely to be.  
• If a response is received, the gist or a summary of the response should be included in what you published. 
• If you do get a letter from lawyers before or after publication that you think is intimidating or threatening, there are a number of organisations that can offer support and assistance, including the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom  and CASE.   
• Think about getting insurance. For example, Reporters Shield, the host of this blog, provides a mutual defence fund for print/online media outlets and NGOs to cover members’ costs of defending SLAPP suits, along with a range of other legal services aimed at preventing SLAPPs.

Guest blog written by Gill Phillips, former Director Editorial Legal Services at Guardian News and Media