Iowa lawmakers try again to pass anti-SLAPP bill expediting First Amendment cases
Iowa lawmakers are trying again to pass legislation aimed at protecting freedom of speech and the press from lawsuits intended to intimidate. (Photo by)
Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, said Tuesday he has high hopes for the Iowa Legislature to pass an anti-SLAPP bill this session after several years of the measure stalling.
SLAPP, or 'strategic lawsuits against public participation,' is a term used for civil lawsuits filed to intimidate a person or news organization from speaking publicly about certain issues. The individuals or organizations bringing these suits do not necessarily think they can win in court, but aim to stop reporting or public speech on a subject by threatening a drawn-out, expensive legal battle.
House Study Bill 116 is this year's run at passing anti-SLAPP legislation in Iowa — one of 15 states that does not have a state measure protecting against these lawsuits. The bill has been passed by the House in previous sessions, but has yet to clear the Senate.
But this year, Holt said he believes the bill has 'outstanding chance this year to advance to the Senate.' The Senate Judiciary Committee passed Senate File 47, the companion bill to the House measure, earlier Tuesday.
'I think this year we're going to get it done,' Holt said.
Holt said his interest in passing anti-SLAPP legislation began in 2018 when a Carroll police officer sued the Carroll Times Herald for libel after the paper reported he was having sexual relationships with teenagers, an act he admitted to. The court case cost the paper over $100,000 and took more than a year to conclude.
The legislation, Holt said, would help prevent these situations by allowing for an expedited relief in court on actions that involve freedom of speech and of the press, as well as the rights to assemble, petition and of association.
'What this legislation allows is a sort of an expedited judgment up front, if the lawsuit is that way, is trying and attempting to silence speech,' Holt said. 'Obviously, if there's slander something there, the judge would determine, 'no, it doesn't fit,' it would move forward. But it does allow that expedited relief and also reasonable attorney fees to the individual who's targeted.'
David Walker, a member of the Uniform Law Commission of Iowa, said the legislation is an important step toward protecting constitutional rights of Iowans.
'This is bipartisan legislation — really crucial to our democracy, in protecting public expression against the kind of intimidation that is real, and that has effect without the protection of this act,' Walker said. '… I would say that it broadly protects all First Amendment rights which are replicated at the Iowa Constitution.'
Several speakers supported the bill on behalf of news organizations, saying the measure will help prevent the judiciary from being used to restrict First Amendment rights. The bill was also supported by multiple speakers who said they had faced threats of legal action for their comments about the construction of Summit Carbon Solutions' proposed pipeline.
Rep. Megan Srinivas, D-Des Moines, said though she has not been working on the legislation as long as Holt, she has 'very vehemently' supported the measure for the past two years.
'I'm eager to do so again, for all of the reasons that each of you have stated, from trying to protect just our constitutional rights to freedom of speech — the very basics of what we should all be standing upon — and the good work that so many in the newspaper industry and journalism industry have done for our state,' Srinivas said.
The House bill is now available for consideration by the House Judiciary Committee. The Senate measure will be available for floor debate after being placed on the calendar.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
26 minutes ago
- Axios
Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable
Congressional Black Caucus chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday she believes President Trump mobilizing the National Guard and deploying Marines to Los Angeles rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Why it matters: It's a break with House Democrats' general aversion towards impeachment from the head of one of their most powerful groups. The comment comes amid growing animosity between Democrats and the Trump administration over the president's use of law enforcement to carry out a campaign of mass deportations. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: During a press conference, Clarke was asked if Trump's actions to quell protests in L.A. rise to the level of an impeachable offense "I definitely believe it is," she responded, "But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." Clarke and other Democrats have argued that Trump has violated the U.S. Constitution by mobilizing the National Guard over Newsom's objections. Reality check: Democrats are highly unlikely to pursue an organized impeachment effort against Trump any time soon. Two rank-and-file members, Reps. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Al Green (D-Texas), have spearheaded their own rogue impeachment initiatives, but most Democrats have dissociated themselves with those efforts. Most Democrats are clear-eyed that impeachment would be doomed to failure with Republicans in control of Congress — and they often note that Trump won in 2024 despite previously being impeached twice. What they're saying: House Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told reporters at a subsequent press conference, "I've said before that ... House Democrats aren't focused on impeachment today."


Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
Impeachment wars
Rep. Jasmine Crockett's mere mention of a possible impeachment inquiry into President Trump has touched off negative reactions from some colleagues. "I think she's going to turn off a lot more people than gain," a House Democrat told us. Why it matters: House Democratic leaders are staying neutral. But many Democrats are allergic to the word after they impeached Trump twice only for him to return to power with full control of the government. Crockett (D-Texas), asked in a local news interview if she would pursue impeachment if Democrats retook the House in 2026 and she became Oversight Committee chair, said she would "absolutely at least do an inquiry." The other three candidates for the ranking member job on Oversight, Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) and Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), told us they wouldn't go that far. 👿 "Turning this ranker race into a proxy for impeachment is unhelpful and unfair to her colleagues," said a House Democrat who predicted Republicans will "try to motivate their base by saying that a Democratic majority will inevitably lead to impeachment." Crockett told us the term "impeachment inquiry" would stress to the public the "next level of gravity" of the subject matter — such as Trump's pardons for big money allies and the Qatari jet scandal. "A lot of times we as Democrats can overthink stuff," Crockett said. "A lot of people ... felt like [Oversight Committee chair] James Comer was an embarrassment. But at the end of the day, who won the House?" The bottom line: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries deferred to House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), whose panel, he said, "has jurisdiction over impeachment."
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bob Costas calls out legacy press for paying ‘ransom' to Trump and pivoting to ‘MAGA media'
Veteran sportscaster Bob Costas declared this week that the 'free press is under attack' while assailing mainstream media outlets for kowtowing to Donald Trump and paying the president a 'ransom,' claiming that 'these are ongoing assaults' to the First Amendment. During his speech at Monday night's Mirror Awards in New York City, where he received the Fred Dressler Leadership Award for making 'distinct, consistent and unique contributions to the public's understanding of the media,' Costas took the opportunity to call out ABC News for capitulating to the president. Shortly after Trump won the 2024 election, ABC's parent company Disney decided to settle the president's defamation lawsuit against the news network and anchor George Stephanopoulos for $15 million. Trump claimed that he was defamed when Stephanopoulos said in an interview that the president had been found liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll, when a jury instead found Trump liable for sexually abusing her. 'All they should've said was, 'George misspoke. The president, that paragon of virtue, was only found guilty of sexual assault, not rape. So we stand corrected.' They didn't have to pay a $15 million ransom,' the 12-time Olympic host declared. He also took issue with Shari Redstone, the chief shareholder of CBS News' parent company Paramount Global. With Redstone standing to make billions of dollars in a merger with Skydance Media, she has pushed the company to agree to settle Trump's lawsuit over a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, which legal experts have deemed frivolous and the news channel has said is 'completely without merit.' In recent months, 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens and CBS News chief Wendy McMahon – who both said they would not apologize for the interview – have resigned amid internal tensions over the pending settlement. The conglomerate's board has already offered Trump a $15 million settlement, which the president has rejected as he's reportedly demanding at least $25 million (plus $25 million in free airtime) along with an apology. 'And did Shari Redstone, because she wants to affect a merger that Trump's FCC can stand in the way of, did she have to besmirch and undercut the gold standard in our lifetime of broadcast journalism – 60 Minutes? Paying $20 million in ransom to Trump is just the cost of doing business when there are billions of dollars at stake,' Costas sighed. 'These are ongoing assaults on the basic idea of a free press.' Throughout the rest of his speech, which was captured on video by journalist Rachel Sklar, Costas bemoaned that the Trump administration was engaging in a full-fledged war against the media. 'The free press is under attack. Democracy as we know it is under attack,' he noted. At the same time, he scolded news organizations for seemingly bending the knee to the president and presenting 'both-sides' coverage in an effort to appease Trump and his supporters. 'But if the answer to that is MAGA media, if the answer to that is Donald Trump's view of the world, which is only through a prism of what benefits him, there are no higher ideals,' he stated. 'There are no principles at work other than what benefits him. I'll stay with where we are without correction if the correction is what Donald Trump represents.' Costas added that due to Trump having 'been normalized,' everything the president does or says forces 'responsible journalists' to 'have to pretend that there's always two sides to this,' prompting him to criticize CNN, a network he joined as a contributor in 2020. 'There really isn't two sides to much of what Donald Trump represents,' he said. 'And the idea that you have to find somebody who will not just defend Donald Trump but valorize it, even on CNN or wherever else, just in the name of being balanced – look, if someone is contending that the Earth is flat in order to appear objective, you are not required to say 'well, maybe it might be oblong.' No, it's not!' After observing that the president 'has absolutely no regard' for 'basic American principles and basic common decency', the legendary play-by-play announcer ended his remarks by relaying how fans of his have turned on him over his recent outspokenness on politics. 'And of course, when I did that, every good thing I did for 40 years was washed away,' he concluded. 'Now I suck. You know what? If that's what you think, and that's how you think, and you think it in defense of that guy, I wear that as a badge of honor.'