We’ve got an election coming up, and with any luck, we’ll have an even more liberty-minded New Hampshire legislature after the November election. One that will craft and pass some Anti-SLAPP legislation protections for Granite Staters.
I asked for this last year, but no one ponied up, and I accept responsibility. I didn’t poke my legislators directly (I have seven Republicans to pester, should I choose). If this doesn’t encourage them or some other legislator/reader to reach out to me, I will fire up the email machine and start nagging.
New Hampshire is the only state in the Northeast without any free speech protection in the form of Anti-SLAPP law, and that’s something we should fix. So how about it?
Why?
Well, first, I should probably explain what a SLAPP is, and to do that, we’ll use one of the best resources for that, Anti-SLAPP.org.
The rights to speech and petition are enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Free speech and healthy debate are vital to the well-being of a democracy. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has said that the right to petition the government is the very foundation of our democracy.
SLAPP = Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation
SLAPPs are Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. These damaging suits chill free speech and healthy debate by targeting those who communicate with their government or speak out on issues of public interest.
SLAPPs are used to silence and harass critics by forcing them to spend money to defend these baseless suits. SLAPP filers don’t go to court to seek justice. Rather, SLAPPS are intended to intimidate those who disagree with them or their activities by draining the target’s financial resources.
SLAPPs are effective because even a meritless lawsuit can take years and many thousands of dollars to defend. To end or prevent a SLAPP, those who speak out on issues of public interest frequently agree to muzzle themselves, apologize, or “correct” statements.
We’ve deforested vast swaths of digital forest on the subject of lawfare on these pages. We even faced down a bill designed to silence us through frivolous lawsuits. I think it’s time we took the steps needed to build some protections for free speech.
How?
The Public Participation Projects Anti-SLAPP.org exists to help states craft or extend free speech protection through anti-SLAPP legislation. They monitor states and grade them. New Hampshire gets an “F” because we’ve got nothing, nada, zilch, the big donut. That seems like an oversight, so I’m back at the keyboard, setting the groundwork for improvement.
Many states have them, and while that does not mean we need to be like them, in this case, we’re talking about protecting free speech that is in legitimate danger, and that’s something worth emulating.
Any legislator interested in writing a Legislative Service Request for an Anti-SLAPP Bill for New Hampshire can start here and here.
What’s Next?
We’ll work our pages to help rally support for the bill, reach out to like-minded groups, and leverage free speech to help protect free speech. It is, after all, what we do here.
The process also presents opportunities. We may see which groups or factions step up to oppose free-speech protecting legislation in the form of Anti-SLAPP legislation. Exposing them and their motivations is always a good time and good for free speech – which should never be a partisan issue. But lately, some have tried to label political discourse to which they object as hate speech.
There is no hate speech, just speech you might hate. That does not give you the right to silence it. SLAPP suits come about specifically to shut one party up and send a message to bystanders. Don’t let this happen to you.
With a robust Anti-SLAPP law, defendants can terminate meritless lawsuits and recover attorneys’ fees for their legal defense.
The goal is to ensure that while legitimate suits can proceed on merit, nuisance suits get dismissed to clear the docket for cases of value. It also dissuades the easily triggered or outraged from clogging up the system with baseless legal maneuvers that have no actual standing while protecting your right to public participation.
That is the short version – still long for me – but how about it? Who is ready to dig in and get this bipartisan protection done in the 2023 session?
Anyone?
