Texas Should Leave Its Anti-SLAPP Law Alone

The Texas Citizens Participation Act, or TCPA, has been one of the strongest laws in the nation protecting citizens against lawsuits intended to silence or punish individuals who speak up on public matters. But HB 2781, a bill making its way through the state’s legislature right now, would needlessly undercut the protections Texans have enjoyed for more than a decade.

Sometimes lawsuits are filed to chill speech or harass people, rather than resolve legitimate legal disputes. These types of censorious lawsuits have been dubbed Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs. Those who bring SLAPPs hope that the time and money people need to defend themselves against the claims—and the stress that results—will intimidate them into silence. Anti-SLAPP laws such as the TCPA protect people from this kind of harassment. For example, thanks to the TCPA’s protections, a Texas court in 2016 dismissed a $1 million lawsuit that a pet-sitting company filed against a Dallas couple just for leaving the business a one-star Yelp review.

Effective anti-SLAPP laws like the current TCPA allow judges to quickly review whether someone’s been hit with a lawsuit for speaking out on a matter of public concern. During that time, other court proceedings are put on hold. If it’s determined that the case is a SLAPP, the lawsuit gets thrown out and the SLAPP victim can recover their legal fees. HB 2781 would remove this automatic stay if a motion to dismiss a SLAPP suit is found to be frivolous, untimely, or subject to a statutory exemption.

This is a mistake. Courts, after all, are not always right. Recent Texas Supreme Court cases such as Kinder Morgan v. Scurry County and Montelongo v. Abrea show that both trial courts and courts of appeal considering anti-SLAPP motions can easily decide timeliness issues incorrectly.

As EFF

[…]
Content was cut in order to protect the source.Please visit the source for the rest of the article.

This article has been indexed from Deeplinks

Read the original article: