Freedom of SLAPP

Peyton Schismenos

11/01/2024

• The First Amendment’s press freedom is built on the back of diligent and difficult litigation; the shield covers reporters and outlets of mistake-making, quick turnarounds, and similar errors. Reporters should be held to accord through a licensing process built on the SPJ Code of Ethics and held from harm through the law outside of harmful practices as provisioned by the 13% of litigated defamation cases favoring the plaintiff. Practicing journalism is dangerous and important work; not everyone “researches” or has “done their research,” despite paralleling the common vernacular of a Google search.
  
  Unfortunately, with today’s information immediacy and intuitive technology now commonly available, journalists are different from citizens but not in any way that matters to the latter. Any person may use “the press” and the First Amendment to hold themselves atop the shoulders of Ethos ala Cronkite and Baldwin with no regard for standards of practice. I think the Press needs a department of standards of practice that separates the ethics of journalism from the overarching First Amendment protections. There should be a lower level that handles breaches of ethics that a journalist may adhere to or fight before they call into question if they’re covered by one of the most important Amendments of the constitution; If the journalists continue to ride this tide of legislation, the judiciary will adjust the standing of the Press therein, forever altering our ability to report freely and speak truth to power. In all, the Press must govern themselves and disconnect profit from the pursuit of prospering thought.
  
  Outlets posting blatantly false or intentionally misleading information not reported in good faith should be open to legal criticism and potential fines. The complication lies with the interpretation of the cases; A company’s fiduciary duty may warrant suits to silence dissent in any way necessary, so any potential mistakes (no matter how minute) could prove grievous for the Press.
  
• On fiduciary duty and legal troubles, people in powerful positions can make life difficult for anyone who disagrees with them, effectively defeating free and effective press coverage and ensuring criticism of any of their positions will have negative consequences. The tangible actionable harm that could come from members of the media is negligible compared to the harm that billionaires can cause by funding and tying up (financially as well as through time) entire organization’s budgets. The bigger the company, the more influential the individual, and the more drawn out the litigation which only works to threaten the reputation of these news outlets.
  
  Sources want to be heard, their points falling on mute organizations when they’re fighting suits from suits. With word being the only currency that brings in currency, these defendants ride a dangerous wave with a fierce undertow when their source of funding is jeopardized until the court’s findings. The First Amendment is the overarching body that is used to counterargue and disarm these entire suits. It would be difficult to win these sorts of places, what with the 13% plaintiff success rate. The path to sidestepping the mass of the protections of the First Amendment is to prove the defendant must have made an exception to them by knowingly lying or showing a reckless disregard for the truth. Even if the suits do not come to a conclusion in favor of the plaintiff, they are costly for these speech machines. Fortunately, for such outlets, anti-SLAPP suits exist.
  
• Anti-SLAPP statutes are effectively the only way to protect a corporation or independently wealthy individual from silencing truth-sayers. Anyone can bring about litigation for any reason they deem necessary; it ultimately is up to the judge’s judgment and prior precedent to determine validity. Anti-SLAPP adjusts this; As costly as it is to litigate in general (by design), the defendant can claim speech made of public importance and thereby leave it to the plaintiff to prove the mentioned disregard for truth, lest they lose and pay the defendant’s legal fees.
  
  Now, the plaintiff must prove actual malice, which started in New York Times v. Sullivan. These sorts of statutes can be detrimental to those who are being defamed in the media. Celebrities and public figures can be targeted, finding themselves in public, but not necessarily needing to be of public knowledge.
  
  Those who opt to be in the sun are certainly burned in situations where they hold steady against tides. The burns come in connection with Pepe Silvia-esque conspiracy, and they’re not lies if they cannot be proven false despite how damaging they have been to these individuals. While not direct calls, the reckless abandon inherent is seemingly encouraged in all but the most blatantly falsifiable (and knowingly incorrect) scenarios, like the recent Sandy Hook Victims v. Alex Jones lawsuit.