LC-32 · State power
Lawsuits meant to silence
The point is the legal bill
In ordinary words
A deep-pocketed plaintiff can sue a critic for defamation knowing the case is weak, because the cost of defending will make the critic quit. Some states dismiss these cases early. Some do not.
Why people call it a crime
People call it legal bullying. Filing a weak lawsuit is usually not itself a crime, and in states without an anti-SLAPP statute it can work.
A scene, not a hypothetical statute
A local blog writes that a developer’s permits look cozy. The developer sues for $5 million. The blog deletes the post because a lawyer would cost more than the site earns. In a weak anti-SLAPP state, that sequence can be lawful.
In legal terms
Anti-SLAPP statutes let a defendant move early to dismiss a claim targeting speech on a public issue and to recover fees. About most states have some version; strength varies wildly. There is no general federal anti-SLAPP statute. Filing a sham lawsuit solely to interfere with a competitor can violate antitrust law (Professional Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures, 1993 sets a high bar). Defamation of a public figure still requires actual malice under New York Times v. Sullivan.
Access to courts is itself a right. Legislatures that have not enacted fee-shifting early dismissal leave the cost of a weak suit on the defendant.
State anti-SLAPP statutes; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
Where it stops being legal
Knowing falsehoods about a private person, suits barred and fee-shifted by an anti-SLAPP statute, and objectively baseless sham litigation can produce liability for the filer.