The only vote against the bill was by Rep. Timothy Bonner (R-Mercer).
Rep. Tim Briggs (D-Montgomery), Majority Chair of the Committee said, “I think one of our first hearings that we had when Chairman Kaufman and I became Chairman [of the Committee]-- Chair Kaufman was the Majority Chair-- was on this exact topic.
“A Senate Bill was sent to us and we had a very good discussion with an individual from the Bar Association-- [a] private attorney-- and I do think this is a better version than that. I thought that was a good version.
“This has been introduced, I believe, since 2014, and each year it gets better. I think this is a really good bill.
“And for the members who have a concern, I hope when we get to the floor we can all be able to support it.”
Rep. Tim Bonner (R-Mercer) opposed the bill saying, “I found this particular bill to be very complex and it has very significant constitutional overtones to it.
“I think it would've been very helpful if we had a hearing on the need for this legislation, or at least a fuller explanation than many of us have received to date.
“I'm going to oppose the bill today, but I'll look forward to studying this bill in further detail to determine if it's truly needed and that it does not in any way stifle free speech or in any way discourage or inhibit those who feel they have a legitimate cause of action to bring that action in a court of law.”
Rep. Rob Kauffman (R-Franklin), Minority Chair of the Committee said in response, “I appreciate the gentleman's sentiment. I would note that as a Majority Chair, we have worked on this legislation for several sessions.
“While legislation is almost always imperfect, I think this is the best iteration we have seen yet and is a significant work product of counsel on my side of the aisle.
“So while I think there certainly can be more study and more conversation regarding this, today I'm going to support this legislation moving forward.”
“I would note that other states have enacted this and then had to come back and improve it. And from my understanding, this language is modeled after the improvements of the states who had enacted it and had to revisit it on multiple occasions.
“And I believe this version is significantly modeled after what happened in the state of Texas.
The bill now goes to the full House for action.
Click Here to watch a video of the meeting. It’s the first bill on the agenda.
Background
Both Republicans and Democrats introduced very similar legislation on this topic on the same day-- June 21, 2023.
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.”
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.
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.
Related Articles:
-- House Republicans, Democrats Introduce Legislation To Prevent The Court System From Being Used By Powerful Interests To Silence Citizen Critics [PaEN]
-- PA Conservatives/Liberals Agree: SLAPP Lawsuits To Prevent Free Speech, Public Participation Are Wrong [PaEN]
[Posted: October 3, 2023] PA Environment Digest
No comments:
Post a Comment