Un pleito estratégico contra la participación pública es un pleito cuya intención es la intimidación y silenciamiento de los críticos ante el costo de una defensa legal hasta que abandonen su oposición o crítica. Ganar la demanda no es necesariamente la intención de la persona que presenta dicho pleito. Las metas del demandante se realizan si la parte demandada sucumbe al miedo, la intimidación, el total de los costes legales o simplemente se agota y abandona la crítica. Estos pleitos también pueden intimidar a otros de participar en el debate. De acuerdo con la jueza de la Corte Suprema de Nueva York Nicholas J. Colabella, "similar a una pistola en la cabeza, una amenaza mayor a la expresión de la Primera Enmienda puede ser difícilmente imaginada". Diversas jurisdicciones han hecho estos actos ilegales. El acrónimo fue acuñado en la década de 1980 por los profesores de la Universidad de Denver Penelope Canan y George W. Pring.

Leer el artículo completo en Wikipedia · CC-BY-SA

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech. The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. There is a difficulty in that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims. Thus, anti-SLAPP laws target tactics used by SLAPP plaintiffs. Common anti-SLAPP laws include measures such as penalties for plaintiffs who file lawsuits ruled frivolous and special procedures where a defendant may ask a judge to consider that a lawsuit is a SLAPP (and usually subsequently dismiss the suit). Anti-SLAPP laws occasionally come under criticism from those who believe that there should not be barriers to the right to petition for those who sincerely believe they have been wronged, regardless of ulterior motives. Nonetheless, anti-SLAPP are generally considered to have a favorable effect, and many lawyers have fought to enact stronger laws protecting against SLAPPs.

Leer el artículo completo en Wikipedia · CC-BY-SA