Cont: notes on NO CONTEST by Nader and Smith
Chapter 5 covers many instances of the power-lawyer hardball approach wherein legal threats or lawsuits are used to stifle public participation in a variety of activities. As previously cited, SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suits are usually dressed up as libel cases claiming the corporate reputation has been harmed by false accusations.
Examples are given of the devastating impact SLAPP suits can have on individuals. Victims can experience intense pressure leading to physical illness, emotional dysfunction, and resulting effects such as divorce. One of the worst effects can be loss of idealism and belief in American justice. Some victims previously very active permanently withdraw from participation in the public affairs of their community.
One corporate lawyer who was told about the devastating impact his SLAPP letter had on its victims was stunned. He said he liked the couple personally and wouldn't want to hurt them. He had no idea of the emotional impact his correspondence had on them. He added, "We lawyers are so used to the pushing and shoving of litigation, we tend to forget that most people are not used to it. We have to be careful.
We have the power to intimidate. We can chill public participation. It is incumbenbt upon us to refrain from overstating our case, and to communicate based on a careful and accurate reading of current law."
The authors point out the lawyer was right but too late. Corporate lawyers need to consider tempering their behavior before they intimidate citizen-activists, rather than after the damage is done. For corporate lawyers and executives the give and take of litigation, of threatening and being threatened with legal action, of having to spend time and effort involved in legal affairs goes with the territory and is a tax deductable cost of doing business. But the broad consequences of SLAPP suits can be profound. Truth can be held hostage by corporate lawyers threatening or filing suit. Publicity about SLAPPs and their impact on defendants may make other citizens--whatever their political concerns or views--afraid to participate in civic affairs. SLAPPs may also deter corporate employees from divulging information and government regulators may be deprived of facts necessary to develop fair rules and provide fair regulation. SLAPPs are a danger to the democratic process and the American tradition of citizen involvement in civic affairs.
Two University of Denver professors George Pring and Penelope Canan, who coined the term SLAPPs and have been studying their development, say that people are being sued in all fifty states for exercising basic rights. Among the SLAPPs they have cataloged are lawsuits brought for:
Writing a letter to the president of the US opposing a political appointment;
Testifying against a real estate developer at a zoning hearing;
Filing administrative agency appeals;
Complaining to a school board about unfit teachers;
Peacefully demonstrating against government action;
Collecting signatures on a petition;
Campaigning for or against a state ballot.
Pring says the situation has become so bad that in one instance a person was sued after attending a public meeting and signing the attendance sheet. Pring and Canan both believe SLAPPs pose a significant threat to politically active citizens and the political system. Their investigation has shown that most victims of SLAPPs are not radicals on the fringes of public participation but middle-of-the-road Americans who are involved in civic activities. SLAPPs are an attempt to 'privatize' public debate, a unilateral attempt by one side to transform a public dispute into a private, legal adjudication. To individuals the choice becomes stark--shut up or be sued.
80-85% are dismissed before trial. But winning the verdict isn't the point of these suits. Bakersfield, California attorney Ralph Wegis, who has gotten a nationwide reputation for successfully combatting SLAPPs says "Filers are often bullies who use the law to achieve business results. The point is the chilling effect. Suits force victims to spend time and money defending themselves....often enough get victims to drop opposition."
Anyone who is aware of any examples of these kinds of gutless, despicable and anti-American lawsuits which would fall into the category of SLAPPs could contact Pring and Canan at the University of Denver where they have established an interdisciplinary project to study them.
Larry |
