Press freedom is not only threatened by governments that censor journalists or arrest reporters. Sometimes, the legal system itself becomes the weapon. One of the most common tools used to silence journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens is known as a SLAPP lawsuit.
Understanding what a SLAPP is and why it matters is essential for anyone who cares about the right to report freely, speak publicly, and hold power to account.
What does SLAPP mean?
SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The term was coined in the 1980s by two University of Denver professors, George Pring and Penelope Canan, who co-authored the foundational text SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out.
As the ACLU of Illinois defines it, a SLAPP is a civil complaint or counterclaim filed against people or organizations who speak out on issues of public interest or concern. In simpler terms, it is a lawsuit used not to seek justice, but to silence someone.
How does a SLAPP work?
A SLAPP is usually filed by someone with significant resources, a corporation, a government body, a wealthy individual, or a public official, against someone with far fewer means: a journalist, an activist, a community group, or an ordinary citizen.
The most common legal form is a defamation or libel claim, though SLAPPs can also appear as copyright suits, harassment claims, or other civil actions. What makes them strategic is their purpose. As Cornell Law School explains, SLAPP filers do not need to win their case to silence their opponents; they simply need them to spend all their time and resources mounting a defense.
Responding to a lawsuit is costly. Legal fees accumulate quickly. The process of producing documents, attending hearings, and being questioned under oath consumes enormous time and energy. And litigation can drag on for years. Even if the person being sued eventually wins, the damage has often already been done financially, professionally, and emotionally.
This is the intended outcome. Experts call it the chilling effect, the way the fear of being sued causes people to stop speaking, stop reporting, or stop asking difficult questions before a lawsuit even reaches a verdict. A 2022 survey by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press found that 59 percent of journalists who had been sued for defamation reported changing their coverage as a result, not because their reporting was wrong, but because of the cost and stress of defending themselves in court.
Who gets targeted?
SLAPPs are filed against those with fewer resources and more to lose. As the ACLU of Ohio notes, while large organizations can be targeted, more often it is individuals with limited means who become victims. Common targets include:
- Journalists and news outlets reporting on corporate wrongdoing, corruption, or unsafe conditions.
- Activists and community advocates opposing development projects or harmful policies.
- Whistleblowers who expose misconduct.
- Ordinary citizens who testified at a public meeting, posted a critical review, or signed a petition.
For the person filing the lawsuit, the cost is often just a business expense. For the target, it can be devastating.
Real-world examples
Murray Energy v. HBO (2017): A West Virginia coal executive sued HBO and comedian John Oliver for defamation after a television segment criticized his company’s safety record. The case became a widely cited example of a powerful plaintiff using the courts to intimidate a critic. The lawsuit was dismissed, but not before drawing widespread attention to how litigation can be used as a tool of pressure rather than a pursuit of justice.
Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace (2024): The company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline sued the environmental organization Greenpeace for hundreds of millions of dollars over its role in protests. Greenpeace described the case as an attempt to silence its right to free speech and peaceful protest. As noted by The Conversation, the lawsuit was filed in North Dakota, a state that at the time lacked legal protections against SLAPPs, a deliberate choice to make the case harder to fight.
Daphne Caruana Galizia (Malta): The Maltese investigative journalist was facing dozens of lawsuits at the time of her assassination in a car bomb in 2017. Her case, documented by the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, became a turning point in the international effort to create legal protections against abusive litigation targeting journalists.
The Apple Alar Case (1989): Apple farmers in Washington state sued the television program 60 Minutes for more than $100 million after a broadcast raised concerns about the chemical alar used in apple growing. Documented by the Public Participation Project, the lawsuit was eventually dismissed, but it helped establish the term SLAPP in public debate.
Why this matters for press freedom
For journalists, a SLAPP is not just a legal problem; it is a direct threat to the ability to report freely.
Investigative journalism depends on sources willing to come forward, editors willing to publish, and reporters willing to ask uncomfortable questions of powerful institutions. When those institutions can threaten years of costly legal proceedings against anyone who covers them critically, the impact on press freedom is real and measurable. Sources go quiet. Stories get dropped. Freelancers without legal support never publish. Small newsrooms absorb the risk until they cannot.
The chilling effect spreads well beyond the journalist who is directly sued. When a corporation sues one reporter or outlet, every journalist watching understands the message. That is exactly what these lawsuits are designed to achieve.
As the First Amendment Encyclopedia explains, those who have not been targeted yet are often affected most: the desire to avoid being sued translates into a reluctance to report, publish, or participate in public debate at all.
How to recognise a SLAPP
Not every lawsuit filed against a journalist is a SLAPP. Genuine legal disputes over defamation or privacy do arise. But there are warning signs that a lawsuit may be strategic rather than substantive:
- The legal claims are weak or have no clear basis.
- The person filing the lawsuit has significantly more money and power than the target.
- The lawsuit was filed soon after the target published critical reporting or spoke out publicly.
- The damage being claimed is wildly out of proportion to any realistic harm.
- The lawsuit is filed in a location where the target has little connection, or where no anti-SLAPP protections exist.
- The person filing the lawsuit seems more interested in prolonging the case than in reaching a resolution.
What to do if you are targeted
If you believe you are facing a SLAPP lawsuit, seek legal advice immediately from a lawyer with experience in media law or freedom of expression cases. Several organizations around the world provide support to journalists and advocates in this situation:
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, legal support hotline, and a state-by-state guide to anti-SLAPP laws in the US
- Freedom of the Press Foundation, advocacy and resources for journalists facing abusive legal threats
- Reporters Shield, a legal defense fund for investigative journalists, was created by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and the Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice
- The Public Participation Project tracks SLAPP cases and provides resources for those defending themselves
Conclusion
A SLAPP lawsuit is a way of using the legal system to do what no court would allow: silence a journalist, punish a critic, or stop the public from knowing the truth. The lawsuit itself is the punishment, regardless of the outcome.
Recognizing this tactic is the first step toward resisting it. As legal protection expands in more countries and states, and as organizations continue to support those who are targeted, the ability to file a meritless lawsuit and walk away unscathed is gradually becoming harder.
But gaps remain. Until every journalist, wherever they work, has access to a fast, affordable route to defend themselves against abusive litigation, SLAPP suits will continue to be one of the most effective tools for silencing fearless reporting.