Your free speech protections might vary depending on the state you reside in. The Institute for Free Speech gave Utah a top rating for free speech in a recent state-by-state report on anti-SLAPP protections. SLAPP is an acronym for “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” and its purpose is to silence individuals from exercising their First Amendment rights.
Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to shield individuals from being sued solely for speaking on public issues, encouraging courts to dismiss abusive lawsuits early and transfer the costs to the plaintiff.
There are currently no federal laws that combat SLAPP lawsuits, but on a state level, Utah received a 100% score for its protection “against costly, meritless, speech-suppressing lawsuits,” the institute told the Deseret News in an email. In total, 25 states received an “A” grade, while on the other end of the spectrum, 12 earned “F” grades for having no anti-SLAPP laws in place.
The report states that 86.2% of the population is covered by some type of anti-SLAPP law. Utah achieved this high percentage thanks to the 2023 legislation called the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, which aims specifically to oppose lawsuits targeting public participation.
“The pace of continued progress in protecting more and more Americans’ free speech rights is astonishing. Yet, there are still far too many states in which wealthy plaintiffs can silence critics with the threat of financial ruin,” Institute for Free Speech President David Keating said in a press release. “States can easily fix this problem by enacting strong anti-SLAPP laws. These laws are one of the most effective tools available to protect free speech, and every state should adopt one that covers all speech about matters of public concern.”
Utah received all points possible in the following categories used in the report:
Suspension of court proceedings following an anti-SLAPP motion
Burden of proof on plaintiff to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion
Right to an immediate appeal
Award of costs and attorney fees
Expansive statutory interpretation instruction to courts
“The two biggest gaps left in protection against SLAPPs are the states with weak or no laws and the lack of a federal anti-SLAPP statute,” Keating added. “Even in states that have adopted strong anti-SLAPP laws, large portions or sometimes all of a state’s laws often don’t apply in federal court. A federal law is also needed to prevent deep-pocketed censors from using lawfare in federal court. We hope that the remaining ‘D’ and ‘F’ states will soon adopt strong laws, and that Congress will also move quickly to pass an anti-SLAPP law that provides an essential safeguard for free expression.”
Comments