Précédent 3 / 27 Next

Credits Collection directors Lee C. Bollinger Catalina Botero-Marino Author ARTICLE 19, author of the paper Special Collection on the Case Law on Freedom of Expression: How are courts responding to SLAPPs? Analysis of selected court decisions from across the globe. Design Vladimir Flórez (Vladdo), illustrator Lourdes de Obaldía, layout and graphic designer Special thanks The Directors, Authors and Editors of the present collection would like to recognize and express their gratitude to all the people whose efforts and talents made the collection a reality. These publications were only possible thanks to the analysis and selection of cases for the database by a wide number of experts and contributors collaborating with Columbia Global Freedom of Expression. The case briefs presented in this collection reproduce the analysis of the cases published in our database, which was only possible due to their invaluable contribution. Copyright © 2023 Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, All rights reserved.

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

How are courts responding to SLAPPS? Analysis of selected court decisions from across the globe

Analysis

Analysis Format: Report

Country

Keywords

Public Interest
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)

Author: ARTICLE 19

Source Name: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression

Source URL (legacy): https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/GFoE_SLAPPs-paper.pdf

Description: The increase of cases of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) is a growing concern for human rights bodies, the media, and civil society around the world. SLAPPs are a form of abusive litigation that intimidate and harass journalists, media outlets, protesters, or environmental and human rights defenders. These lawsuits are typically initiated by politicians, public officials, wealthy businesspeople, big companies, and public figures aiming to silence critical voices and stifle scrutiny and public debate. This study examines some judicial responses to SLAPPs in a small sample of cases around the world. It looks into whether courts recognise the danger posed by SLAPPs and whether and how they assess SLAPP cases. The study is divided into three sections. First, we provide a brief overview of the concept of SLAPPs and why they are concerning from the perspective of freedom of expression and freedom of the media. Second, we try to deduct some key aspects of judicial responses to SLAPPs in jurisdictions without dedicated anti-SLAPP protection, determine whether these are adequate, and outline what underlying issues need to be addressed to eliminate the problem of SLAPPs. Finally, we offer a conclusion that provides some initial recommendations on how the good practices of courts and existing gaps should be addressed based on international freedom of expression standards.

Related Caselaw

Collection

Columbia

Documents principaux

GFoE_SLAPPs-paper.pdf
English
Télécharger Vue