SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and refers to the abuse of legal procedure to intimidate or silence 'public watchdogs' (journalists, academics, NGOs, human rights defenders, environmental organisations, citizens' initiatives...). This is a worrying phenomenon since the aim of the 'slapper' is to stifle public debate, through the abuse of the justice system.
It usually involves (the threat of) civil lawsuits brought by wealthy or influential individuals or companies, alleging that a particular publication, report, brochure, pamphlet or website contains erroneous or defamatory content. Through the courts, they then demand either the removal or modification of that content, or (and sometimes in combination) (substantial) damages for reputational damage. Sometimes it also involves (threatening) complaints or direct summons to the criminal court, for example for defamation, stalking or criminal breach of privacy laws. Such actions are often designed to intimidate critical (investigative) journalism or campaigns by NGOs or citizens' initiatives. The plaintiffs in such cases have no valid prospect of winning the lawsuit, but mainly want to harass and deter their critics through these SLAPPs by the prospect of high legal fees and protracted court proceedings. In some cases, the threat to file such a lawsuit, for instance through a letter from a law firm, is enough to achieve the desired effect.
The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (Dunja Mijatovic, "Time to take actions against SLAPPs", October 27, 2020) described the problem with SLAPPs as follows:
"SLAPPs: lawsuits with an intimidating effect
The Annual Report of the Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists highlights groundless legal actions by powerful individuals or companies that seek to intimidate journalists into abandoning their investigations. In some cases, the threat of bringing such a suit, including through letters sent by powerful law firms, was enough to bring about the desired effect of halting journalistic investigation and reporting.
This problem goes beyond the press. Public watchdogs in general are affected. Activists, NGOs, academics, human rights defenders, indeed all those who speak out in the public interest and hold the powerful to account might be targeted. SLAPPs are typically disguised as civil or criminal claims such as defamation or libel and have several common features.
First, they are purely vexatious in nature. The aim is not to win the case but to divert time and energy, as a tactic to stifle legitimate criticism. Litigants are usually more interested in the litigation process itself than the outcome of the case. The aim of distracting or intimidating is often achieved by rendering the legal proceedings expensive and time-consuming. Demands for damages are often exaggerated.
Another common quality of a SLAPP is the power imbalance between the plaintiff and the defendant. Private companies or powerful people usually target individuals, alongside the organisations they belong to or work for, as an attempt to intimidate and silence critical voices, based purely on the financial strength of the complainant."
In a 15 March 2022 judgment in OOO Memo v Russia, the European Court of Human Rights highlighted the danger of SLAPPs to democracy. The ECtHR reported "the growing awareness of the risks that court proceedings instituted with a view to limiting public participation bring for democracy".
See also: