SERC would like to give special thanks to the California Anti-SLAPP Project (http://www.casp.net) for providing much of the information used below.

Every year thousands of people are hit with SLAPPs for activities such as:

• writing a letter to a newspaper
• reporting misconduct by public officials 
• speaking at public meetings
• filing complaints with officials over proposed environmentally destructive developments
• filing complaints with officials over violations of health and safety laws
• "whistle blowing" in corporations
• circulating a petition 
• lobbying for legislation
• peacefully demonstrating

"The longer the litigation can be stretched out…the closer the SLAPP filer moves to success," observes New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella. "Those who lack the financial resources and emotional stamina to play out the 'game' face the difficult choice of defaulting despite meritorious defenses or being brought to their knees to settle.…Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined." (http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q2/slapp.html)

The following are examples of actual SLAPPs that have occurred within the last twenty years:

• In 1981, POME (“Protect Our Mountain Environment”), Colorado environmental group, was sued by a developer for testifying against county approval of a 507 acre development in a pristine alpine area near Evergreen. POME filed the usual appeal after the county approval, and were then sued for 40 million for “conspiracy” and “abuse of process.” 
• In 1995, West Covina, CA residents, upset about a 583 acre landfill, protested to the city. As a result, the landfill sued a neighborhood group, twelve of the neighbors, and city officials, claiming that their civil rights were infringed upon. 
• In 1994, a resident of Dallas, TX complained in writing to the city because a contractor employed by the city was dumping toxic waste next to his property. The contractor sued him under a libel statute for $90,000.
• In Pennsylvania, parents distressed after hearing reports of unsafe school buses stated their concerns at a school board meeting and were subsequently sued by the school bus company for $680,000. 
• In California, demonstrators peacefully protested against a nuclear power plant, and were then sued by the county for $2,891,000. The county was demanding the costs for arresting and jailing the protestors. 

What this Act will do: 
The Citizen Participation Act will set out the policy of discouraging SLAPPs and provide procedural remedies upon the filing of a suit. More specifically, it provides the following procedures in a SLAPP dismissal motion: 

• automatically making it a final summary judgment motion 
• requiring it to be heard quickly 
• providing for appeal if a decision is delayed or denied suspending discovery
• shifting the burden of proof to the SLAPP filer 
• applying the heightened scrutiny of “clear and convincing evidence,” and 
• authorizing the involved government body or the state attorney general to participate.

Additionally, the bill includes a provision for attorneys’ fees and court expenses if the victim prevails, and provides a clause for SLAPPbacks. It further incorporates sanctions for filers and their attorneys if warranted. 

Anti-SLAPP Acts are important pieces of state legislation, and they work:

• Twenty states have enacted anti-SLAPP laws (a list of these states can be found at http://www.casp.net/menstate.html). 
• In the mid-80s Congress introduced legislation encouraging states to enact anti-SLAPP legislation.
• State anti-SLAPP legislation significantly deters suits from being filed and greatly assists victims with expedited dismissals and other procedural safeguards. Every state needs anti-SLAPP legislation in order to be true to the principles of a democracy.