Latest news with #StrategicLawsuitsAgainstPublicParticipation
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Texas House bill on lawsuits shelved after critics label it harmful to free speech
A bill that critics say would have eroded free speech protections will not move forward in the Texas Legislature this session. House Bill 2988 by Rep. Mano DeAyala would have removed the automatic award of attorneys fees to defendants if they prevail in what are known as SLAPP lawsuits — which opponents said would have limited free speech protections to those who can afford to independently pay for a lawyer. His office confirmed to the Tribune that the bill was tabled, which means even sponsors do not expect any more action on it before this legislative session ends in three weeks. DeAyala said in an interview with the Tribune that while the bill is not moving forward, he thinks the conversation might prompt steps to address what he sees as problems with the current law. 'It is being abused, misused,' DeAyala said of the process that exists now. 'We can keep the good … and slow down — maybe not completely stop — but slow down and reduce this abuse considerably.' In SLAPP lawsuits — or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation — people or companies sue citizens claiming defamation or libel, often drowning the defendants in legal fees in an effort to intimidate them into silence. In 2011, lawmakers passed the Texas Citizens Participation Act to deter those lawsuits by requiring those who file them to pay the defendant's attorneys fees if they lose the case. DeAyala, in his bill, proposed amending the law to leave to a judge the decision about who those fees go to — arguing that not having to pay them was prompting defendants to file meritless motions to dismiss and needlessly delaying the process. But a broad swath of opponents urged lawmakers to vote no at a House judiciary committee hearing in April, saying the change would render the law essentially useless. Laura Prather, who heads the Protect Free Speech Coalition which opposes the bill, described the legislation as 'a full-frontal assault on the protections under the law.' 'If you're rich, you can afford to speak freely,' Prather said in April of the bill's impact. 'If you're not, you can't.' The Protect Free Speech Coalition consists of what lawmakers at the April hearing described as a mix of strange bedfellows: anti-abortion and Second Amendment advocates, good government groups, and national and local media outlets. The coalition formed in 2019 to combat prior efforts to narrow the law. (The Texas Tribune is a member of that coalition.) Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which opposed the bill, said it was 'very good news' that the measure was not moving forward. Requiring attorneys fees makes it easier to find legal representation because there is a guaranteed payment for the lawyers if their clients win, he said. The 2011 Citizens Participation Act 'is a crucial protection for ordinary Texans and the free flow of information, and it's crucial for the law to work that people are able to find lawyers,' he said in an interview. 'To change the fees provision in this way would make it much more difficult.' DeAyala's move to roll back some of the act's provisions was part of a broader effort supported by the business-backed advocacy group Texans for Lawsuit Reform to reduce people's ability to file what the group sees as frivolous lawsuits. In 2019, House Bill 2730 by Rep. Jeff Leach was signed into law, which narrowed the definition of 'public concern' — a factor that protects people from getting sued for statements they make. In 2023, an ultimately unsuccessful effort by Sen. Bryan Hughes would have allowed those who file lawsuits against critics to continue collecting evidence during an appeals process. Disclosure: Texans for Lawsuit Reform has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Straits Times
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
Press freedom stifled in Greece, reforms needed, says Human Rights Watch
FILE PHOTO: A man looks at newspaper headlines at a kiosk, a day after U.S. President Joe Biden announced that he is dropping his reelection bid, in Athens, Greece, July 22, 2024. REUTERS/Louiza Vradi/File Photo ATHENS - Press freedom has been stifled in Greece since Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis' conservative government came to power in 2019, with phone malware and aggressive lawsuits used against journalists, Human Rights Watch said in a report on Thursday. At least 15 journalists said they had at some point faced a lawsuit or legal threat for their reporting, the global rights group said in a 101-page report based on interviews with 34 journalists, academics, legal and media experts. It cited an annual index from Reporters without Borders giving Greece the lowest score in Europe. HRW said it is too easy under Greek law to restrict journalists through lawsuits know as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), which are filed against reporters based on claims of defamation or breach of EU data protection. "The pervasive and deliberate constraints on journalism in Greece are creating an environment in which critical reporting is stifled and self-censorship becomes the norm," said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at HRW. The government has publicly dismissed the allegations in the past and its spokesperson Pavlos Marinakis said on Wednesday that Greece has made progress on media freedom, as reflected in the Commission's annual report on rule of law. The topic of press freedom in Greece hit the headlines in 2022 when a wiretapping scandal was revealed after a journalist said his phone had been infected by spyware. Traces of that spyware were later found in dozens of phones. HRW urged authorities to draft an action plan to include ensuring public media independence, adopting anti-SLAPPs legislation and shielding journalists from surveillance. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Reuters
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Press freedom stifled in Greece, reforms needed, says Human Rights Watch
ATHENS, May 8 (Reuters) - Press freedom has been stifled in Greece since Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis' conservative government came to power in 2019, with phone malware and aggressive lawsuits used against journalists, Human Rights Watch said in a report on Thursday. At least 15 journalists said they had at some point faced a lawsuit or legal threat for their reporting, the global rights group said in a 101-page report, opens new tab based on interviews with 34 journalists, academics, legal and media experts. It cited an annual index, opens new tab from Reporters without Borders giving Greece the lowest score in Europe. HRW said it is too easy under Greek law to restrict journalists through lawsuits know as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), which are filed against reporters based on claims of defamation or breach of EU data protection. "The pervasive and deliberate constraints on journalism in Greece are creating an environment in which critical reporting is stifled and self-censorship becomes the norm," said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at HRW. The government has publicly dismissed the allegations in the past and its spokesperson Pavlos Marinakis said on Wednesday that Greece has made progress on media freedom, as reflected in the Commission's annual report, opens new tab on rule of law. The topic of press freedom in Greece hit the headlines in 2022 when a wiretapping scandal was revealed after a journalist said his phone had been infected by spyware. Traces of that spyware were later found in dozens of phones. HRW urged authorities to draft an action plan to include ensuring public media independence, adopting anti-SLAPPs legislation and shielding journalists from surveillance.
Irish Times
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Dáil votes by 86 to 64 to abolish juries in defamation cases
Juries in High Court defamation actions are set to be abolished after the Dáil voted by 86 to 64 for their removal. Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan had opposed the move as a Government backbencher, when the Defamation (Amendment) Bill was introduced last year. At the time he described the measure as 'short-sighted' and 'not fully thought out'. But the Minister told TDs that being in a political party 'requires compromise'. He said there has been a general election since he made those remarks, the legislation is part of the programme for government and he is bound by that as a member of Cabinet. READ MORE The Dáil was debating the legislation, which aims to reform the State's defamation laws, including relating to online trolling, and to reduce legal costs for parties involved. The Bill also introduces protection against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (Slapps), which are seen as a threat to press freedom and are usually taken against individual journalists. Independent TD Catherine Connolly had called on the Minister to show 'moral courage and leadership' by opposing the abolition of juries. 'I wouldn't like to be sitting in your position and having to eat my words. I don't think you should eat your words. I think you should be proud of them,' she said. There has been a belief among media defendants that without juries, monetary award values will reduce and defamation cases would not last as long. Previously, Mr O'Callaghan's assessment was that this would not be the case, she said. She quoted his remarks: 'If we abolish juries, I can guarantee [to] the House that we will develop a whole body of jurisprudence that will result in cases being repeatedly appealed to the Court of Appeal and probably the Supreme Court.' It is seldom the case that jury decisions are appealed, he had added. Ms Connolly said to abolish juries 'is nothing less than a bowing to vested interests'. Sinn Féin justice spokesman Matt Carthy said his party opposes the abolition of juries as a matter of principle and would oppose the entire Bill on this basis. He added that 'it would leave Ireland as a complete outlier in common law jurisdictions globally'. The Law Society and Bar Council have pointed to the importance of members of the public determining issues relating to damage to reputation and freedom of expression, and he sees this as 'eminently sensible'. Social Democrats justice spokesman Gary Gannon said juries play an important role to ensure fairness, particularly when 'powerful entities' are involved. He added that there is no evidence jury actions are more costly. Labour TD Marie Sherlock said the legislation is now out of date. She said legal fees in defamation cases are higher than in any other civil action and the legislation should change that practice. She proposed an amendment that would mean juries have a role in determining questions of fact but no role in the assessment of damages. Mr O'Callaghan said it would be inappropriate and would divide functions between the jury and the judge. The amendment was rejected by 86 to 64 votes. The Minister said one of the consequences of being in a political party 'is the need and necessity for compromise'. There had been a general election, and Fianna Fáil put forward a manifesto that he supported, which included the passage of the Defamation Bill. Mr O'Callaghan added it was 'not a question of morality but a recognition of the compromise that is required if one becomes a minister in government and if one signs up to a programme for government that contains a principle that was in conflict with what I had said previously'.
RTÉ News
30-04-2025
- Politics
- RTÉ News
Opposition challenge removal of juries in High Court defamation cases
Opposition parties have tabled a series of amendments opposing the removal of juries in High Court defamation actions. Sinn Féin TD Matt Carthy told the Dáil that he is opposed to what is the centrepiece of the Government's Defamation Bill, and said that many in the legal profession shared his party's concerns. He proposed deleting the entire section dealing with the measure, and asked to know whether the current Minister for Justice, Jim O'Callaghan, plans to proceed with the bill as it is, as it had been prepared by his predecessor. Social Democrats TD Gary Gannon said that juries play an important role and "ensure fairness", especially where "powerful entities" are concerned. Abolishing them "would make Ireland an outlier", he said, and insisted that there is no evidence that jury trials are more costly. Independent TD Catherine Connolly asked if the Government is "intent on ramming this through", and called on Minister O'Callaghan to show "moral courage" in dropping the measure. "I wouldn't like to be sitting in your position now and having to eat my words," she said, and quoted remarks the minister had made during an earlier stage of the bill - and before his appointment as minister - where he said: "the decision to abolish juries in the High Court would be short-sighted". Sherlock warns that bill is 'now out of date' Labour's Marie Sherlock expressed "serious concerns with key elements of this bill", and warned that it is "now out of date". She said that legal fees in defamation cases are higher than in any other civil action, and said the bill should be used to change that practice. The Defamation Bill was published last year, and aims to reduce costs for those seeking to defend their good name, including in relation to anonymous online trolls. Currently, this can only be done in the High Court. The bill would also introduce protection against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or "SLAPPs", which are often taken against individual journalists and are widely seen as a threat to press freedom. Minister O'Callaghan defended the measures in the bill, and said he would be opposing the various amendments tabled this evening. He noted the remarks of his which Deputy Connolly had quoted, and said that since then, there has been a General Election, during which his party's manifesto had promised to enact the bill. He said that being in a political party requires compromise, unlike being an independent, and rejected the suggestion that the removal of juries was a moral matter. The minister said that he is "bound by the terms of the Programme for Government."
