The study “Silencing journalists in matters of public interest: Journalists and editors assessments of the impact of SLAPPs on journalism” by Tanja Kerševan and Melita Poler from University of Ljubljana investigated the issue of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) in an EU country, Slovenia.
SLAPPs, also known as strategic litigation against public participation, are lawsuits intended to intimidate the target into refraining from criticism or opposition with legal defense expenditures – the intent is not necessarily to win the case, but to make the costs prohibitive for the targeted party.
USA has strong anti-SLAPP legislation but the EU lacks behind. Just recently, in April 2022, the EU published a proposal for an anti-SLAPP directive, which ended up being heavily watered down. Nevertheless, there is understanding that the issue needs to be dealt with at some point.
The impact of SLAPPs in journalism has not been previously researched sufficiently. In previous research, the “chilling effect” of SLAPPs is often taken for granted. However, in-depth analysis on how they affect targets and their impact on non-targeted journalists remains scarce.
In this study, the authors look at how SLAPPs affect both targeted and non-targeted journalists in Slovenia. To do this, the authors interviewed 18 journalists and editors from six media publishers and broadcasters. Half were defendants in SLAPP-defined lawsuits.
The results can be summed up by this direct quotation from the study:
“Four major themes emerged in how interviewees assessed the impact of SLAPPs: (1) a reluctance among journalists/editors to recognise the direct impacts of SLAPPs on their work; (2) differences in the perceived chilling effects of SLAPPs according to the journalist’s/editor’s employment status, and the type and resources of the media organisation; (3) impacts on the journalist’s/editor’s private life; and (4) systemic factors related to the societal, political, economic and regulatory frameworks in which the media operate.”
As seen, the journalists were reluctant to even acknowledge the impact of SLAPPs on their work. There were no major differences between the sued and the non-sued journalists here. However, the sued journalists were more likely to acknowledge the censorship-like effects of SLAPPs.
The authors also found out that it is impossible to to assess SLAPPs in isolation, without taking into account the personal, organisational or systemic-level influences. The support of the employers is crucial here – this affects whether the journalist can afford to defend against the lawsuit. If the support is strong, the impact of a SLAPP is lessened.
The authors note the limitations of the study in regard to the qualitative method and the smallish sample size, but nevertheless, the results may serve as a bridge for further research on the impact of SLAPPs particularly within the European Union.
The article “Silencing journalists in matters of public interest: Journalists and editors assessments of the impact of SLAPPs on journalism” by Tanja Kerševan and Melita Poler is in Journalism. (open access).
Picture: Untitled by Andrew Le @letanloc1941995.
License Unsplash.