Strategic lawsuit against public participation

According to New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella, "Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined."

Judge Colabella was referring to a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) such as that filed by our two recall councilors against Chief Petitioner Sally Gump.

Strategic lawsuit against public participation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a lawsuit or a threat of lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.

Oregon's Anti-SLAPP law
http://lebanonsfortruthandreconciliation.blogspot.com/2007/11/oregons-anti-slapp-law.html

Sunday, November 11, 2007
Not only are we protected by the United States Constitution, we are protected by the free speech clause of the Oregon Constitution. So what, you say. The free speech clause of the Oregon Constitution is considered the broadest of all free speech clauses in the country.

Moreover, since 2002, Oregon has had an anti-SLAPP law. SLAPPs are Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, lawsuits that are designed to keep people from speaking about public issues simply because they can't afford the costs of defending such suits. Gardner v. Martino (a defamation suit concerning a customer who complained about service from a local business on a consumer radio show) was dismissed under the anti-SLAPP law. That suit was brought in the United States District Court in Oregon and dismissed in December 2005.

Not only does an anti-SLAPP law motion stop all action in the case until the motion is resolved (so much for all the pesky, expensive discovery), it also allows successful defendants to recover reasonable attorney fees and court costs. In the Gardner case, the defendants received an award of $41,612.10, of which $40,000 was attorney fees.