Abstract

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) pose a serious threat to free expression, often targeting journalists and media outlets to intimidate or silence critical reporting. Many states have adopted anti-SLAPP statutes that provide procedural protections for speech to deter meritless, speech-chilling suits. But not all states have such laws, resulting in a patchwork of uneven speech protections across the United States. Even where such laws exist, SLAPP plaintiffs can often evade them by forum-shopping or removing to federal court, where state anti-SLAPP provisions do not always apply. In the absence of a federal anti-SLAPP law, journalists across the country remain vulnerable to costly litigation that can chill democratically vital speech. A uniform federal solution is needed—yet if crafted too broadly, a federal anti-SLAPP law could inadvertently shield even intentionally false or malicious speech, undermining legitimate defamation remedies and public accountability.

This Note argues that Congress should enact a federal anti-SLAPP statute anchored in a “good-faith journalism” standard to strike the proper balance. Good-faith journalism means speech that a reasonable person would believe is a direct presentation of facts or a description of events produced through deliberate action to report in accordance with established journalistic professional and ethical standards. By conditioning anti-SLAPP protections on good-faith journalism, this tailored approach navigates First Amendment constraints on speech regulations and ensures that such a federal anti-SLAPP law neither over-protects low-value falsehoods nor under-protects valuable, factual reporting. A federal anti-SLAPP law built on good-faith journalism would fortify freedom of expression by safeguarding the press’s essential role in democracy, while preserving accountability by denying special protection to those who flout journalistic integrity through intentional or reckless falsehoods.

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS