House Republicans, Democrats Introduce Legislation To Prevent The Court System From Being Used By Powerful Interests To Silence Citizen Critics

On the same day, groups of Republican and Democratic legislators in the House introduced legislation to do the same thing-- prevent SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) lawsuits aimed at silencing citizen critics and preventing people from exercising their constitutional right to free speech.

Republican Bill

Rep. Russ Diamond (R-Lebanon) introduced House Bill 1464 with a group of Republican legislators.

When he announced the legislation, Rep. Diamond said, “[This legislation is] aimed at preventing our court system from being abused by powerful actors who seek to bully Pennsylvanians into refraining from exercising their First Amendment rights.

“SLAPPs are lawsuits filed against a person or organization for statements made, or positions taken, in connection with a matter of public interest or regulation. Some of the legal theories cited in SLAPP lawsuits are defamation, invasion of privacy, nuisance, malicious prosecution or abuse of process, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and interference with contract or economic advantage.

“While all serve as valid reasons for legitimate litigation, in practice the true purpose of a SLAPP is to chill free speech and to deter or silence critics by burdening them with mounting a legal defense requiring the significant expenditure of time and financial resources, when the plaintiff knows they cannot prevail on the merits.

“The Free Speech Protection Act creates a process to quickly dismiss SLAPPs against constitutionally protected speech through a special motion to dismiss. If successful, the moving party may recover attorney fees, costs and damages related to the SLAPP. 

“The legislation is balanced, in that it also includes a “SLAPP back” provision: If a defendant is found to have filed a SLAPP motion frivolously or merely as a delay tactic, the court can award attorney’s fees and costs to the plaintiff. As such, this legislation will not deter sincere plaintiffs with genuine grievances from petitioning our courts.

“Anti-SLAPP legislation has wide appeal and does not break down along political or ideological lines. Several other states – including Texas and California – have broad anti-SLAPP statutes. 

“In 2000, Pennsylvania established limited protections from SLAPPs, but only in the narrow area of environmental law (Title 27 Chapter 83).

“Pennsylvania – the Cradle of Liberty and the Birthplace of Independence – must set the highest standard in the nation when it comes to protecting First Amendment rights. The Free Speech Protection Act will go far in accomplishing that.”

In 2019, Rep. Diamond teamed up with then Sen. Lawrence Farnese (D-Philadelphia) to introduce similar legislation.  Read more here.

Democratic Bill

Rep. Ryan Bizzarro (D-Erie) introduced House Bill 1466 with a group of Democratic lawmakers and one Republican.

When he announced the legislation, Rep. Bizzarro noted the “legislation was previously introduced as HB/SB 95 during the 2019-2020 session and passed the Senate during the 2015-16 and 2017-18 [sessions] with overwhelming bipartisan support.”

He used pretty much the same language as Rep. Diamond to describe the bill--

“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs, are lawsuits filed against a person or organization for statements made or positions taken in connection with a matter of public interest or regulation. 

“Some of the legal theories often used in SLAPPs are defamation, invasion of privacy, nuisance, malicious prosecution or abuse of process, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and interference with contract or economic advantage.

“Despite the legal theories supporting the suit, the true purpose of a SLAPP is to deter or silence critics by burdening them with the costs of a legal defense. 

“Defendants and others are deterred from engaging in open debate about public issues for fear that they could face one of these suits and end up paying attorney’s fees and expending significant time and resources to defend against a meritless claim.”

  “This legislation will give individuals and organizations across the Commonwealth the incentive and the tools to fight back against these frivolous suits and continue their good work. 

“Specifically, our legislation would create a process to quickly dismiss SLAPP lawsuits based upon protected speech through a motion to dismiss. If the motion is successful, defendants may recover attorney’s fees, costs and damages related to the action. 

“There is also a SLAPP back provision, so if a party invokes a SLAPP motion frivolously or solely to cause unnecessary delay, the court will award attorney’s fees and costs to the non-moving party.”

Both bills have similar, but not identical provisions, so maybe there’s a good chance of bipartisan action to move this important legislation.

Both bills were referred to the House Judiciary Committee for action.

Rep. Tim Briggs (D-Montgomery) serves as Majority Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and can be contacted by calling 717-705-7011 or send email to: repbriggs@pahouse.net.   Rep. Rob Kauffman (R-Franklin) serves as Minority Chair, and can be contacted by calling 717-705-2004 or send email to: rkauffma@pahousegop.com. 

(Photos: Rep. Bizzarro and Rep. Diamond.)

Related Article:

-- Senate Republicans Pass Bill To Significantly Narrow The Grounds For Appealing DEP Environmental Permit Actions  [PaEN]

[Posted: June 23, 2023]  PA Environment Digest