Nevada May Be About To Lose Its Great Anti-SLAPP Law
from the so-much-for-that dept
We've mentioned many times the importance of anti-SLAPP laws in protecting people who are being sued solely to try to shut them up. It's still a travesty that we don't have a federal anti-SLAPP law but are reliant on various state anti-SLAPP laws. In case you're not familiar with them, SLAPP stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation." Anti-SLAPP laws basically allow people who are sued to quickly get lawsuits dismissed when it's obvious that the entire point of the lawsuit is to silence whoever is being sued, rather than for any legitimate legal purpose. For years, California was seen as having one of the best anti-SLAPP laws, but in recent years both Texas and Nevada upped the ante in anti-SLAPP laws, making them even stronger. Nevada's had a particularly useful feature: it would award "reasonable costs, attorney's fees and monetary relief" for defendants who were wrongfully hit with SLAPP suits. Basically, it provided a real deterrent against SLAPP suits.However, just two years after unanimously passing that bill, the Nevada Senate has just unanimously repealed that important provision, in the form of SB 444. If you take a look at the bill, you'll see it explicitly repeals the fee shifting section. Apparently, some people didn't like the fact that they might have to pay up for filing bogus lawsuits trying to stifle speech. If that were all it did it, it would be tragic enough, but as Popehat clearly describes, the bill also undermines the rest of the anti-SLAPP law in pretty nefarious ways, making the existing rules toothless.
The bill still needs to go through the state assembly and be signed by the governor, but it's really disappointing to see Nevada move backward on anti-SLAPP laws just as much of the rest of the country is moving forward. Nevada provided a useful anti-SLAPP model, but apparently someone wasn't happy about that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-slapp, free speech, nevada, slapp
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Nevada anti-SLAPP
Follow the money. Adelson v. Harris, Stanley, NJDC. Sheldon Adelson lost his defamation suit per Nevada anti-SLAPP law. His appeal was denied in December, 2014.http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=337
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us- 2nd-circuit/1687444.html
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Creating bandaids and making a giant frankenlaw has all the same problems, if not more, as adding new laws. See copyright. If you are expanding a law in theory completely striking the old law and crafting a new one is, in theory, a better way to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nevada anti-SLAPP
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=337
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us- 2nd-circuit/1687444.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nevada anti-SLAPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nevada anti-SLAPP
http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/03/stephen-wynn-jim-chanos/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This link goes to the bill page.
http://leg.state.nv.us/Session/78th2015/Reports/history.cfm?ID=969
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
campain slogan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If the court determines that the defendant filed the special motion to dismiss in bad faith, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in opposing the special motion to dismiss."
How does something like this pass with no public commentary? Unanimously? Something is really rotten in the state of Denmark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Share with your friends or Like us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-Nevada-SB-444/429743137207208?ref=tn_tnmn or follow us on Twitter @stopsb444
[ link to this | view in chronology ]