SLAPP+Suits+-+JPH



//Corporations have turned to the legal system to silence criticism for their practices//. //By using these Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) corporations are taking away our First Amendment rights to free speech and petition of the government.//

Sshh!! The Silencing of Democracy
JP Hennessey

__Getting SLAPPed__ Since the 1970’s an increasing number of corporations have begun to tie a noose around of the neck of democracy and the environment by using the legal system to restrict the free and open participation by activist groups and individuals in the democratic process. SLAPP suits or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation are filed by corporations against activist groups or even individuals who speak out publicly against the corporation, hold demonstrations, or encourage the boycotting of company products. The suits typically accuse the offending party of defamation or slander and demand damages for loss of profits. SLAPPs rarely win in the courts, but it does not matter because the purpose of a SLAPP suit is to intimidate activists from speaking out against the corporation or its practices. The money and time investment often leads activists to drop their cause and makes others think twice before they try to stand up against the corporation. SLAPP suits are extremely successful in that regard. Until recently, it has been extremely difficult for defendants to stand up to the corporations because frivolous cases were rarely thrown out and there were not legal provisions for defendants to counter sue if the case is deemed frivolous (SLAPPing Back 1998).

__Daishowa vs. Friends of the Lubicon__ A consummate example of a SLAPP suit is the case of Daishowa, a multinational pulp company, vs. The Friends of the Lubicon, an activist group who support the rights of the Lubicon Cree in northern Canada. The Canadian government granted the Daishowa Company exclusive logging rights in northern Alberta in exchange for them building a pulp and paper mill to bring industry to the area. The Lubicon Cree tribe is afraid of the effects of Daishowa’s clear cutting practices on their traditional territory. When negotiations between the Lubicon Cree and Daishowa failed a Toronto based group of activists named The Friends of the Lubicon organized highly successful boycotts of Daishowa products and set up peaceful picketing campaigns against businesses that did not participate in the boycott. Daishowa responded by suing the organization as well as three key organization members for interference with economic interests, induced breach of contract, and intimidation along with demanding millions of dollars in damages for lost profits. The court first decided that the boycott was legal on the grounds that it was a form of free speech and participation in government. An appellate court overturned the first decision which was finally repealed by a higher court later. Friends of the Lubicon would surely have lost or been unable to afford the legal fees for the three year fight if other organizations, such as the Sierra Defense Fund, did not come to their aid. The time and monetary investment for the defense was absolutely ridiculous and Daishowa was never stopped from cutting while the court battle proceeded. Suits such as these bring activists campaigns to a standstill while the bickering the courts ensue. SLAPP suits such as these discourage the free and open participation of citizens in the democratic process. SLAPP suits are becoming increasingly common in nations around the world and are most prevalent in countries with similar legal systems to the United States or the United Kingdom (Tollefson 1996) (Sierra Legal Defense Fund 1998).

__The Matrix__ The ability of corporations to intimidate individuals and groups has a huge impact on the matrix of sustainability problems. The successful intimidation of activists severely inhibits the democratic process, the voice of people. People need to be able to publicly express their views on the practices of businesses and corporations. When people are being silenced by corporations then the there is no longer balance in the system. Anything that inhibits profits is seen as a barrier to most corporations. It is the people and the government that are charged with keeping corporations in line. They must act as the protectors of the health, safety, and wellbeing of the community and the environment. To silence the people is to allow corporations to act without considering the implications of their decisions on the future of people and the environment (SLAPPing Back 1998). Corporate intimidation and suits in the science and technology fields are another significant problem that affects sustainability. An alarming number of scientists have admitted to withholding or purposefully falsifying data due to intimidation from their bosses or universities based on pressure from corporations. If data that is pertinent to the health and safety of people and the environment is not being disclosed or is being falsified then it is impossible for good policy to be made regarding the use of suspect materials or products or their waste programs. Scientists need to be free to publish and disclose all of their findings so that they can be challenged and verified by the scientific community. In that way the public can make proper policy decisions regarding the actions of corporations. The government needs to be able to base policy of the most tested, scientifically debated, and scientifically accepted data. Only in that way will people be able to retain control of their health, safety, and well-being from corporations (Kuehn 2004).

__SLAPPing Back__ To prevent corporations and institutions from using the legal system against the public it is imperative that laws be enacted that can protect the public and give them the ability to fight back. The judicial system should also exercise its right to withdraw corporations’ charters and there must also be a redefinition of trade secrets. Several states have enacted laws AntiSLAPP or SLAPPback laws, but more states and even nations need to enact these laws to protect their citizens. The AntiSLAPP laws that have been enacted include provisions that allow judges to throw out frivolous SLAPP suits quickly as well as prevent discovery stays†. SLAPPback laws allow defendants in frivolous SLAPP suits to counter sue for damages and these counter suits can be for claims for millions of dollars. These types of laws level the playing the field between corporations and individuals and empower them to fight back against frivolous charges and can even hurt the corporation that sued them (Tebo 2005). Empowering the courts and municipalities to regulate corporations or even disband them is another important step towards curtailing corporations. Most state and federal courts have the right to revoke corporate charters, but they rarely use those powers. Municipalities also have the power to control zoning and building codes which can be used to ban certain types of industries within their borders to resist unethical business practices. These branches of government need to begin using the powers that the people have granted them (The Corporation). The final step towards SLAPPing back at corporations is to redefine “trade secrets”. Currently most AntiSLAPP laws are not extended to suits involving trade secrets. A California Court claimed that “society has no special interest, or at least no heightened First Amendment-level interest, in ordinary debates over trade secrets.” Although this may be true in many cases it does not take into account the fact that corporations also use trade secrets to prevent the disclosure of what materials are being used in their products, what they are disposing as hazardous waste, and how they are disposing of it. Trade secrets need to be legally redefined in a manner such that the public health and safety takes precedence over corporate competitive advantages (Schaller 2010). The steps that are being taken to curtail the corporation’s ability to suppress free speech are highly effective, but there is still work that needs to be done. There needs to continue to be a concerted effort to protect activists, scientists, and citizens from frivolous suits and intimidation. The government needs to return to an entity that is by the people and for the people and corporations need to become subservient to the health, safety, and well-being of all stakeholders.

//†Discovery Stays refer to evidence that is discovered after charges have already been brought forward and court proceedings have begun. They can be used by corporations who file SLAPP suits. The corporation will file a law suit against an organization or individual and hope that evidence of illegal activity with surface once the trial over the frivolous charges has begun.//

**Works Referenced** Anonymous, “ SLAPPing back for Democracy.” __Multinational Monitor__ Vol. 19 (May 1998): 21-25. __Proquest__. Renssealer Polytechnic Institute Lib., NY. 20 Oct. 2010 <[]>

__Blue Gold.__ Prod. & Dir. Bozzo, Sam. DVD. Purple Turtle Films, 2010. __The Corporation__. Prod. Achbar, M. Dir. Achbar, M. and Abbot J. DVD. Big Picture Media Corporation, 2004. “Consumer Boycotts Rules Legal in Canada.” 14 Apr. 1998. Sierra Legal Defense Fund. 20 Oct. 2010 <[|http://tao.ca/~FOL/pa/forestp/daifolp/pr980414.htm]> __Guarding Against the Chill: A Survival Guide for SLAPP Victims.__ The First Amendment Project. 20 Oct. 2010 <[]> Kuehn, Robert R., “Suppression of Environmental Science.” __American Journal of Law and Medicine__ Vol. 30 (2004): 333-370. __Proquest__. Renssealer Polytechnic Institute Lib., NY. 20 Oct. 2010 <[]> Schaller, William L., “Secrets of the Trade: Tactical and Legal Considerations from the Trade Secret Plaintiff’s Perspective.” __The Review of Litigation__. Vol. 29 (2010):729-858. __Proquest__. Renssealer Polytechnic Institute Lib., NY. 20 Oct. 2010 <[]> Tebo, Margaret G., “Offended by a SLAPP.” __ABA Journal__, Vol. 91(2005): 16-17. __Proquest__. Renssealer Polytechnic Institute Lib., NY. 20 Oct. 2010 <[]> Tollefson, Chris and Pollard, Matt, “Multinational Pulp Company SLAPPs Suit Against Activist Group.” __Alternatives Journal__, Vol. 22 (1996): 4. __Proquest__. Renssealer Polytechnic Institute Lib., NY. 20 Oct. 2010 <[]>