SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION “intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.”37 The Court opined that the plaintiff, by filing the case in a matter of public concern that needed debate, attempted to “stifle debate about the use of pesticides and insecticides.”38 The Court noted that “whether such use, or overuse of pesticides over a period of time, affects life, plant or human, could be a matter of discourse, but certainly not one which could be stifled through intimidatory SLAPP litigation.”39 l In South Africa, the Western Cape High Court in Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Reddell and Others,40 concerning defamation suits initiated by mining companies against environmental lawyers and activities, defined the SLAPPs as “meritless or exaggerated lawsuits intended to intimidate civil society advocates, human rights defenders, journalists, academics and individuals as well as organisations acting in the public interest.”41 The Court characterised SLAPP suits as those “disguised as an ordinary civil claim, designed to discourage others from speaking on issues of public importance and exploiting the inequality of finances and human resources available to large corporations compared to the targets. These lawsuits are notoriously, long drawn out, and extremely expensive legal battles, which consume vast amounts of time, energy, money, and resources.”42 It added that SLAPP suits have the effect of weaponizing the legal system and shifting matters of public interest into technical legal disputes, and, because the plaintiffs often have significant financial advantages over the defendants and the damages sought are often exorbitant, they chill public debate by sending “a clear message to activists that there are unaffordable financial risks attached to public participation.”43 The Court highlighted that the simple threat of having a SLAPP suit brought can “engender fear and intimidate the target.”44 The fact that courts are defining the cases as SLAPPs is important for setting up the framework for assessing the respective cases as a whole. The courts are recognising the SLAPP nature of the case as a key aspect of the matter. As such, the recognition of SLAPPs is an important step towards providing protection against them by courts. Courts are referring to anti-SLAPP protection in other jurisdictions When referring to the concept of SLAPPs, some court decisions referred to protection against SLAPPs in countries that have adopted specific anti-SLAPP legislation. For instance: l In Palacio Urrutia and Others v. Ecuador, two judges of the Inter-American Court explic- 37 Ibid., para 23. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid., para 23. 40 Western Cape High Court, Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd v. Reddell; Mineral Commodities Limited v. Dlamini; Mineral Commodities Limited v. Clarke, (7595/2017; 14658/2016; 12543/2016) [2021] ZAWCHC 22; [2021] 2 All SA 183 (WCC); 2021 (4) SA 268 (WCC) (9 February 2021). The case summary of the decision by Global Freedom of Expression is available here. 41 ibid., para 39. 42 Ibid., para 40. 43 Ibid., para 42. 44 Ibid., para 43. 12