Characteristics of SLAPPs - SLAPP is a form of strategic litigation or impact litigation. - SLAPPs often take the form of civil suits for defamation. - Forum shopping is a common feature of SLAPPs. - SLAPPs are effective at silencing critics. - SLAPPs may include extra or spurious defendants.

History and Jurisdictional Variations - The term 'SLAPP' was coined in the 1980s. - SLAPPs were originally defined as lawsuits involving communications made to influence governmental action. - The right to petition the government is protected by the First Amendment. - SLAPPs are still defined as civil lawsuits filed against those who have communicated to government officialdom. - New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella described SLAPPs as a significant threat to First Amendment expression. - The Protection of Public Participation Act 2008 in the Australian Capital Territory protects conduct intended to influence public opinion. - Parties starting or maintaining a proceeding for an improper purpose may be ordered to pay a financial penalty. - Political libel and forum shopping incidents have been referred to as SLAPPs in Canada. - Quebec, British Columbia, and Ontario have enacted anti-SLAPP legislation. - The Fraser v. Saanich case in British Columbia was one of the first explicitly ruled as a SLAPP. - SLAPPback refers to the ability of defendants to counter-sue SLAPP plaintiffs. - There is little academic concern or examination of political subject matter or remote forums as clear indicators of SLAPPs in Canada.

Criticism of anti-SLAPP laws - Some believe that there should not be barriers to the right to petition for those who sincerely believe they have been wronged. - The difficulty in drafting and applying SLAPP legislation is to balance early termination of invalid suits without denying a legitimate day in court. - Anti-SLAPP laws are generally considered to have a favorable effect. - Many lawyers have fought to enact stronger laws protecting against SLAPPs. - Criticism of anti-SLAPP laws often stems from concerns about denying a legitimate day in court.

Efforts in Specific Jurisdictions - The Protection of Public Participation Act (PPPA) was enacted in British Columbia in April 2001 following the Fraser v. Saanich case. - The legislation was repealed in August 2001 after extensive debate on its merits and criteria for judges. - BC activists, especially the BCCLA, have advocated for a broad understanding of SLAPP and a broad interpretation of judicial powers. - In March 2019, the legislature unanimously passed another anti-SLAPP bill, the Protection of Public Participation Act. - In Ontario, the Daishowa v. Friends of the Lubicon case in 1996 provided insights into SLAPPs. - The Ontario Attorney-General introduced legislation to dismiss strategic lawsuits attacking free expression on matters of public interest. - Quebec adopted an anti-SLAPP bill in 2009, making it the first Canadian jurisdiction with a specific mechanism. - The European Parliament passed a resolution in 2020 expressing concern about media freedom and called for minimum standards against SLAPP practices across the EU.

Impact and International Perspectives on SLAPP - SLAPP suits can have a chilling effect on free speech and public participation. - Anti-SLAPP legislation aims to protect the right to free speech and encourage public participation. - The dismissal of SLAPP suits can help safeguard democratic values and promote open dialogue. - SLAPP suits are not limited to specific countries and have been observed in various jurisdictions worldwide. - Different countries have developed their own approaches to address SLAPP suits, including anti-SLAPP legislation and legal doctrines. - The recognition of the importance of free speech and public participation varies across jurisdictions. - International cooperation and sharing best practices can help combat SLAPP suits globally. - Efforts are being made to promote awareness and provide support to individuals and organizations facing SLAPP suits internationally.