SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION SLAPPs under existing legal frameworks There is no uniform definition of SLAPPs in national or international frameworks and different definitions are used in laws and advocacy.7 In general, as noted earlier, SLAPPs are defined as abusive lawsuits pursued with the purpose of shutting down acts of public participation or the exercise of human rights. These legal actions are directed against individuals and organisations – including journalists, media outlets, whistle-blowers, activists, academics, and NGOs – that speak out on matters of public interest.8 Typically, SLAPPs are initiated under defamation laws, but studies show that they are also brought under privacy or data protection laws, public order laws (e.g. against protesters), or various criminal and anti-harassment provisions. Available evidence also shows that those initiating SLAPPs have a history of legal intimidation, use many of the same law firms to facilitate new lawsuits, and pursue a disproportionately large amount of compensation from the targets of SLAPPs.9 This is similar in jurisdictions where abusive plaintiffs initiate both criminal and civil actions in parallel, as well as constitutional claims and administrative proceedings on the basis of damage to the “good name” and “honour” of individuals.10 Protection against SLAPPs in national laws The first protections against SLAPPs have been adopted in common law countries - USA, Australia and Canada. At present, at least thirty US states have enacted protection against SLAPPs either in dedicated anti-SLAPP laws or in civil procedure statutes.11 Although the determination of whether a case qualifies as a SLAPP, and the scope of its protection, varies significantly, these laws allow courts to dismiss SLAPP cases at the early stages of a civil proceeding and, in some cases, award costs and attorney fees to defendants.12 For instance, California’s civil procedure rules recognise that participation in matters of public interest should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process; they provide for special motions to dismiss cases that limit the exercise of constitutional rights or free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.13 By contrast, New York Civil Rights Law and Civil Procedure Law Rules allow only for the dismissal of SLAPPs 7 See e.g. Supreme Court of Canada, 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22, Judgment 10 September 2020, the case summary of the decision by Global Freedom of Expression is available here; American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, SLAPPed: A tool for activists. Part 1: What is a SLAPP suit?; CASE, Coalition Against Slapps in Europe; or Business and Human Rights, SLAPPs database. 8 See e.g. the definition of SLAPPs by the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, in On Countering Legal Intimidation and SLAPPs in the UK, July 2021; G. W. Pring, SLAPPs: Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation, 7 Peace Environmental Law Review. 3,1989, p. 6.; Laws to Silence, op. cit., p. 7. 9 See e.g. University of Amsterdam/Greenpeace International, SLAPP research: Provisional conclusions, 2020; and Media Freedom Rapid Response, SLAPPs against journalists across Europe, March 2022. 10 Laws to Silence, op.cit. 11 See Public Participation Project, State Anti-SLAPP score card. 12 See S. Brown and M. Goldowitz, The Public Participation Act: A Comprehensive Model Approach to End Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation in the USA, Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 3., 2010 19(1)); or State Anti-SLAPP Scorecard, op.cit. 13 California Code of Civil Procedure, Part 2. Of Civil Actions, Title 6. Of the Pleadings in Civil Actions, Chapter 2. Pleadings Demanding Relief, Article 1. 425.16. (a), (b) (1) and (e). 8