Anti-SLAPP

In a recently released decision, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the important role of anti-SLAPP legislation in protecting those who speak out on matters of public interest and against whom legal action is taken. In particular, the Court made clear that so called “counter-speech” seeking to defend a vulnerable group weighs in favour of protection.

A new report, Global Anti-SLAPP Ratings: Assessing the strength of anti-SLAPP laws, compares and ranks the strength of anti-SLAPP laws in the world’s 37 jurisdictions that offer legal protection against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) – legal actions launched to shut down discussion and critical commentary on issues of public interest.

By Evan Brander and James L. Turk

CFE Intervener Factum - Supreme Court of Canada

On January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court surprised many observers by agreeing to hear the appeal in Neufeld v Hansman, a relatively obscure anti-SLAPP case from British Columbia.  

An easy mistake to make in any discussion of freedom of expression is to believe there is absolute certainty anywhere in the definition of that term. If you are jumping into a debate on free speech certain you know exactly what you believe (plus all the implications of that belief), chances are you’ve grossly over-estimated your own position. If you’re doing that on Twitter, either get your thumbs familiar with the block/mute functions, or free up a lot of time for an epic Twitter fight unlikely to solve anything for anyone.