In 2016 a couple in Texas wrote a negative Yelp review of a pet sitting company after receiving unsatisfactory service. That company sued the couple for defamation, seeking $1 million in damages. A Texas judge quickly dismissed the lawsuit because Texas law protects the public against frivolous SLAAP lawsuits in many contexts.
What is a SLAAP suit? A SLAAP suit is a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” These suits are antithetical to our first amendment rights. SLAAP suits are legal cases filed not necessarily to win, but with the intention to silence, intimidate and drain the time and money from those who speak up against a company, politician or public entity. There are hundreds of cases across the country that illustrate clearly why strong anti-SLAAP legislation is critical to protection of our first amendment rights.
Here in New Mexico our protections against SLAAP suits are limited to public expression in a public hearing or public meeting in quasi-judicial proceedings before a tribunal or decision-making body. For example, in the recent PNM/Avangrid buyout case a critic of Avangrid who had previously done business with Avangrid gave public comment and, based on their personal experience with the company, questioned whether Avangrid would benefit New Mexico. Avangrid sued him for defamation but he was exonerated by the New Mexico District Court and again upon appeal, and awarded attorneys fees.
But if that speech had occurred in a different context, Avangrid could have prevailed, or at least drawn out the case to successfully silence and bankrupt a critic for exercising their first amendment rights.
In fact, NM received a "D" from the Institute for Free Speech for its first amendment protections because our anti-SLAAP legislation is so narrow in scope. HB 169, the Public Expression Protection Act, filed yesterday and assigned to House Consumer and Public Affairs and House Judiciary, would earn New Mexico an “A.”
The purpose of the Public Expression Protection Act is to safeguard individuals and entities from frivolous lawsuits designed to suppress free speech, public participation, or criticism by burdening defendants with costly and lengthy litigation. The act will ensure that individuals can exercise their rights to free speech, assembly, and petition without fear of intimidation through the legal system. It covers:
Communications in Governmental Proceedings: Speech made during legislative, executive, judicial, administrative or other governmental proceeding.
Matters of Public Concern: Speech related to issues being reviewed in these governmental contexts or matters affecting the public interest.
Protected Rights: Expressions involving the right to free speech, press, association, assembly, and petition under the U.S. and New Mexico Constitutions.
The act outlines expedited dismissal procedures for meritless lawsuits targeting these protected activities, allows for stays on proceedings, and mandates the awarding of attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing defendants.
Why is this legislation critical now? Over the last few decades, we have seen an increase of lawsuits used to intimidate and silence the public. The law provides a mechanism for the swift dismissal of such cases without the burden of costly and lengthy litigation. Other examples of SLAAP suits:
CBS News was sued by Trump for $10 billion in damages over the network’s editing of an interview with former Vice President Harris that he claims showed him in a bad light. They are in settlement talks. ABC recently caved to another Trump SLAAP suit.
Greenpeace is facing a lawsuit by Energy Transfer Partners, builder of the Dakota Access pipeline, for $300 million, who are making outrageous and racist claims that big green organizations like Greenpeace orchestrated the Indigenous-led movement at Standing Rock. The goal is to bankrupt Greenpeace.
Write to your representatives in the NM legislature, and to the members of the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee and ask them to Vote YES on HB 169. Even more motivated, write a Letter to the Editor or an Op-ed to your local paper to share why this issue is important for people of all political persuasions!
Comments