Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or strategic litigation against public participation, are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
An abuse of process is the unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings or process to further a cause of action by an applicant or plaintiff in an action. It is a claim made by the respondent or defendant that the other party is misusing or perverting regularly issued court process not justified by the underlying legal action. In common law it is classified as a tort distinct from the intentional tort of malicious prosecution. It is a tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts. In the United States it may be described as a legal process being commenced to gain an unfair litigation advantage.
Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (2005) is a California Supreme Court opinion by then-Associate Justice Janice R. Brown interpreting the state's SLAPP statute. Specifically, the case holds that an appeal from a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion stays all trial court proceedings: "The perfecting of an appeal from the denial of a special motion to strike automatically stays all further trial court proceedings on the merits upon the causes of action affected by the motion...you have a right not to be dragged through the courts because you exercised your constitutional rights."
Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006), was a California Supreme Court case concerning online defamation. The case resolved a defamation claim brought by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal and several others. Barrett and others alleged that the defendants had republished libelous information about them on the internet. In a unanimous decision, the court held that Rosenthal was a "user of interactive computer services" and therefore immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case that rejected the argument that a separate opinion privilege existed against libel. It was seen by legal commentators as the end of an era that began with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and continued with Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., in which the court clarified and greatly expanded the range and scope of what could be said in the press without fear of litigation.
Canadian defamation law refers to defamation law as it stands in both common law and civil law jurisdictions in Canada. As with most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues.
Marc J. Randazza is an American First Amendment attorney and a legal commentator on InfoWars.
Nevsun Resources Ltd was a Canadian diversified mid-tier miner with a portfolio of base metal assets. The company was acquired by Zijin Mining Group Company Limited on December 29, 2018. The company's three principal assets are its ownership interest in the Timok Project, a high-grade copper-gold development project in Serbia, its Bisha zinc-copper mine in Eritrea, and its balance sheet. The company also holds a number of additional exploration licences and permits in Serbia, Macedonia, and in the Bisha mining district.
Taus v. Loftus, 151 P.3d 1185 was a Supreme Court of California case in which the court held that academic researchers' publication of information relating to a study by another researcher was newsworthy and subject to protection under the state's anti-SLAPP act. The court noted that the defendants had not disclosed the plaintiff's name and that Nicole Taus had disclosed it herself when she filed the case under her own name. The court did find that Taus had alleged a prima facie case that Loftus had misrepresented herself during the investigation and that this one count may proceed to trial.
The Xolobeni mine is a proposed titanium mine located in the Wild Coast region of the Eastern Cape of South Africa. The proposed mine has reserves amounting to 348.7 million tonnes of ore grading 5% titanium.
Joseph Groia, is a Canadian lawyer specializing in securities litigation. He has been ranked as one of Canada's 500 Leading Lawyers (Lexpert) since 2000 and is consistently rated as one of Canada's top securities litigators by the same publication. He has worked on many of Canada's leading securities cases, including Asbestos Corp., Bre-X Minerals Ltd., Canadian Tire, Cinar Corporation, Hollinger, Torstar/Southam, Philip Services and YBM.
Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd is a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on appeal from the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, regarding claims in defamation and the defence of parliamentary privilege.
Steven Arnold Majiedt is a South African judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. He joined the Constitutional Court in October 2019 as an appointee of President Cyril Ramaphosa. Formerly a practicing advocate, he served in the Supreme Court of Appeal from 2010 to 2019 and in the Northern Cape High Court from 2000 to 2010.
Tracey, T/A Engineering Design & Management v Burton, [2016] IESC 16, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court considered the Irish courts' ability to limit the right of access to the courts and, in extreme cases, to dismiss proceedings.
"SLAPP Suits" is a segment of HBO's news-satire television series Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, focusing on strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). It first aired on November 10, 2019, as part of the twenty-ninth episode of the series's sixth season. The episode marked British-American comedian and host John Oliver's response to winning a SLAPP defamation lawsuit against him initiated by American mining businessman Robert E. Murray. The lawsuit began in 2017, after Oliver heavily criticized Murray and his company, Murray Energy, in a segment concerning the coal-mining industry in the United States. Murray claimed in his lawsuit that Oliver had carried out a character assassination against him, but the case was dismissed in under a year, and an appeal by Murray Energy was unsuccessful. During the lawsuit, the American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief that was widely covered due to its sarcastic humor.
The special motion to strike is a motion authorized by the California Code of Civil Procedure intended to stop strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). They were created in 1992 with the purpose of encouraging participation in matters of public significance. The motion allows a litigant to strike a complaint when it arises from conduct in furtherance of the moving party's rights to petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. If the moving party prevails, they are entitled to attorney's fees by right. The motion is codified in section 425.16 of the Code. More than 300 published court opinions have interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law. Because the right to file a special motion to strike is substantive immunity to suit, rather than a merely procedural right, federal courts apply the law to state law claims they hear under diversity jurisdiction.
Geoffrey Budlender is a South African lawyer known for his involvement in public interest litigation. He co-founded the Legal Resources Centre, where he worked as an attorney until he was admitted as an advocate in 2005. He is currently a part-time member of the Competition Commission's Competition Tribunal.
Reddell and Others v Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others is a 2022 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa concerning the right of trading corporations to claim for general damages in defamation suits. A majority of the court upheld that right but qualified that it does not apply to defamation suits arising from public discourse on matters of public importance. Moreover, the court located the right as grounded in a common law personality right rather than as grounded in the Bill of Rights; in that it diverged from the Supreme Court of Appeal's opinion in Media 24 Ltd and Others v SA Taxi Securitisation.
Freedom of expression in South Africa is guaranteed in section 16 of the Constitution of South Africa. This right to freedom of expression, which is regarded as being of fundamental importance to South African constitutional democracy, was first recognised in the Interim Constitution of 1993. The right is not unqualified — certain forms of expression fall outside of the ambit of section 16(1), and the right is capable of limitation in accordance with the general principles of South African constitutional jurisprudence. Application of the right to freedom of expression by the courts has had a considerable impact on, amongst other fields, South African criminal law, defamation law and trademark law.
Khumalo and Others v Holomisa is a landmark decision in the South African law of delict. It was decided by the Constitutional Court of South Africa on 21 May 2002. Handing down judgment for a unanimous court, Justice Kate O'Regan held that the existing common law of defamation is consistent with the Bill of Rights. The case emanated from a challenge by members of the press, who argued, in the main, that falsity should be an element of the delict of defamation in suits brought by public officials. However, the court rejected this argument, finding that existing common law does not impose an undue limitation on freedom of expression.
