There have been many recent reports of a novel use, or misuse, of the law in which the rich, powerful and well funded have been trying to stifle political opponents, limit the freedom of the press, and curtail free speech for all of us by using a legal device more commonly used in copyright cases brought by media companies to protect against infringements of their intellectual property. Their main use has, up to now, been against offshore websites, out of the reach of English courts, but they are increasingly being use to block access to websites expressing opinions that the claimant does not like. I refer, of course, to the use of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) for political purposes.
A SLAPP is a lawsuit against public participation intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defence until they abandon their criticism or opposition. In this case the repercussions could be even worse as, if a precedent is set whereby the wealthy or well-funded can use the law to silence opposing voices, the result will be ever more censorship and society becoming even more of a thought-policed tyranny.
Many lawyers and legal bodies oppose the use of SLAPPs, but they still continue. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is wholly opposed to them, saying that they “are a misuse of the legal system, through bringing or threatening claims that are unmeritorious or characterised by abusive tactics, in order to stifle lawful scrutiny and publication, including on matters of corruption or wrongdoing.”
The SRA tells solicitors and law firms that they “must not bring or threaten unmeritorious claims or engage in tactics that are intimidatory or otherwise oppressive” and that they “should identify proposed causes of action or behaviours which comprise a SLAPP or abuse of the litigation process and decline to act in this way”. The SRA advises that “particular care is required where a publication ventilates a matter that is likely to engage the public interest.” And yet SLAPP orders are still sought in court. 
Not too long ago the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee heard that the impact of the wealthy using SLAPP cases to intimidate journalists is much worse in the UK than people realise with those that end up in court being “just the tip of the iceberg”. Journalists and lawyers providing evidence to the Committee said the impact of SLAPP cases went deeper than court cases, with pre-court intimidation and the threat of costly legal proceedings meaning countless articles never get published. Committee chair Baroness Tina Stowell said they would write to the Government to “encourage urgent action on this issue”.
In December 2023 Labour MP Wayne David introduced a private member’s bill, the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill because of growing concern about what he called ‘the misuse of litigation to suppress freedom of speech’. In February this year, the Conservative government threw its weight behind the measure, which would create a statutory dismissal process for claims classified as SLAPPs. ‘We want people to feel confident standing up to the corrupt, knowing the law is firmly on their side,’ then lord chancellor Alex Chalk told parliament.
But then the general election was called, and the Bill was dropped. Any prospect of reviving it was kicked into the long grass. The issue of SLAPPs was not mentioned in Labour’s King’s Speech. While in opposition Labour supported reform, but now they form the government they appear to have lost interest. Many in the legal profession are dismayed, but not all. Some, apparently those who take up such cases for wealthy clients, have expressed satisfaction that Labour has decided not to act.
To counteract SLAPPs, many jurisdictions have enacted anti-SLAPP laws. These laws are designed to provide defendants with a mechanism to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits that are intended to inhibit their right of free speech. An anti-SLAPP motion can lead to the dismissal of the lawsuit and may also allow the defendant to recover legal fees and court costs. We all need to join together to add our voices to the call for anti-SLAPP legislation in Britain. It is imperative in the fight for free speech.
We need to do all we can. Write to our MPs, set up a petition, and try to persuade other journals and even the MSM to take this issue up and force it down the government’s throat. FSB will be doing all it can to try to promote anti-SLAPP laws and protect our under-attack freedoms, the most precious of which is free speech. We need your help.