InstitutionalMANIPULATIVE

Strategic Litigation (SLAPP)

What it is

Using lawsuits to silence criticism, drain opponents' resources, and deter others from speaking out — even when the legal claims have no merit.

How it works

The goal isn't to win in court but to punish critics through the legal process itself. Legal defense is expensive and time-consuming, and the threat of lawsuits chills speech even when the claims are baseless. Large organizations use this power asymmetry to silence individuals, journalists, and small organizations who can't afford to fight.

Real-world examples

  • •Corporations suing environmental activists for defamation over factual public statements.
  • •Wealthy individuals filing libel suits against journalists to suppress investigative reporting.
  • •Real estate developers suing community groups opposing their projects to drain their resources.

Historical case studies

McLibel: McDonald's Corporation v. Steel and Morris

1990–2005English Libel Law

McDonald's sued five London activists for libel over a leaflet criticizing its food, labour practices and environmental record. Three apologized; a gardener and a former postman, Helen Steel and David Morris, could not get legal aid and defended themselves through a 313-day trial, the longest in English history. In 1997 the judge found some of the leaflet's claims true and others defamatory, and awarded McDonald's £60,000, later reduced, which it never collected after spending an estimated £10 million. In 2005 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the proceedings had breached the pair's rights to a fair trial and to free expression. English libel law had let a corporation with unlimited resources put the burden of proof on two individuals with none.

Source →

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

1960–1964US Supreme Court

After the Times ran a fundraising advertisement for Martin Luther King Jr.'s defence that contained minor factual errors, Montgomery city commissioner L. B. Sullivan, who was not named in it, won a $500,000 libel verdict from an Alabama jury. Other Alabama officials filed similar suits, and by the time the case reached the Supreme Court Southern officials were seeking millions of dollars from national news organizations covering the civil rights movement. The Court reversed unanimously and required public officials to prove "actual malice," observing that fear of such judgments would chill reporting on public affairs whether or not the suits ultimately succeeded.

Source →

Ethical guidelines

  • ●Using the legal system as a weapon against free speech is an abuse of process.
  • ●The power asymmetry between corporate legal budgets and individual critics makes this inherently coercive.
  • ●Anti-SLAPP legislation is essential to protect public participation in democratic discourse.

How to defend against it

  • ►Know your state's anti-SLAPP laws — many allow early dismissal and fee recovery.
  • ►Connect with press freedom and free speech organizations that may provide legal support.
  • ►Document the chilling effect: the mere threat of litigation is itself newsworthy.

DISARM framework

How analysts would file this in the open DISARM framework (v1.6.1, CC BY-SA 4.0). Closest matches, mapped by Persuasion Lab.

T0139.002SilenceT0078Dismay

References

  1. Canan, P., & Pring, G. W. (1988). Strategic lawsuits against public participation. Social Problems, 35(5), 506–519
    Coined the term SLAPP and reported the first empirical study: suits filed against citizens for petitioning government, mostly lost by plaintiffs but effective at chilling participation.
  2. Pring, G. W., & Canan, P. (1996). SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out. Temple University Press
    Book-length study showing the purpose is the cost and fear of litigation itself, not winning — the entry's central claim.
  3. European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2024). Directive (EU) 2024/1069 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings ("Strategic lawsuits against public participation"). Official Journal of the European Union, April 2024
    Legislative recognition that abusive suits target journalists, activists and small organisations, with early-dismissal and cost-shifting remedies.
Last reviewed
Suggest a correction

Detect Strategic Litigation (SLAPP) in any text

Paste any message, email, or article into our free Manipulation Detector to see if Strategic Litigation (SLAPP) or other techniques are being used on you.

Try the Detector FreeCreate Free Account