Have you ever left a negative review online for a particular company or hotel? If so, have you ever thought about getting a lawsuit against you for doing the review? It can happen! A SLAPP is a phrase that came from two law school professors, Penelope Canan and George W. Pring, in the late 1980’s. It stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. This law is to “prevent companies and government entities from filing frivolous lawsuits against their critics” (Weisman). Many jurisdictions have made these lawsuits illegal as they interfere with freedom of speech, and are therefore dismissed or decided in favor of the defendants. The anti-SLAPP law is meant to provide a cure from SLAPP lawsuits. These costly lawsuits occur when people
…show more content…
“The remaining states lack legislative protection against SLAPPs, and the state laws cannot be invoked against federal claims in federal court” (Smart Consumer). The U.S. Court of Appeals states that the state anti-SLAPP law does not apply in federal court. The state laws vary dramatically from state to state. California, for example, has very wide protection against SLAPPs, while others have narrow laws. Florida passed a broader anti-SLAPP law in July 2015. The law previously only applied to the SLAPP suits filed by governmental entities, now, the law applies to anyone who files a SLAPP. If a person in a state with strong anti-SLAPP laws has a suit filed against them in an out of state or federal lawsuit, then the state protections will not protect them. This is the reason that the uniform federal law to protect the First Amendment rights is needed. If the states would have laws that were more similar, then the federal laws may not be needed as much. In Georgia, the original anti-SLAPP law was passed in 1996. At this time it was limited to the involvement of government facilities. However, in 2016 the Georgia legislature expanded the law. The expansion statue was similar to that of California’s as it will now apply to cases that involve social media post. The anti-SLAPP law in Georgia does not apply in federal court because it conflicts with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
“The remaining states lack legislative protection against SLAPPs, and the state laws cannot be invoked against federal claims in federal court” (Smart Consumer). The U.S. Court of Appeals states that the state anti-SLAPP law does not apply in federal court. The state laws vary dramatically from state to state. California, for example, has very wide protection against SLAPPs, while others have narrow laws. Florida passed a broader anti-SLAPP law in July 2015. The law previously only applied to the SLAPP suits filed by governmental entities, now, the law applies to anyone who files a SLAPP. If a person in a state with strong anti-SLAPP laws has a suit filed against them in an out of state or federal lawsuit, then the state protections will not protect them. This is the reason that the uniform federal law to protect the First Amendment rights is needed. If the states would have laws that were more similar, then the federal laws may not be needed as much. In Georgia, the original anti-SLAPP law was passed in 1996. At this time it was limited to the involvement of government facilities. However, in 2016 the Georgia legislature expanded the law. The expansion statue was similar to that of California’s as it will now apply to cases that involve social media post. The anti-SLAPP law in Georgia does not apply in federal court because it conflicts with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure