Podcast Summary: On the Media – "SLAPP Un-Happy"
Episode Information
- Title: SLAPP Un-Happy
- Release Date: April 7, 2021
- Host: WNYC Studios' On the Media hosted by Brooke Gladstone and Micah Loewinger
Introduction to SLAPP Suits and the Planet Aid Case
In the April 7, 2021 episode of On the Media, host Bob delves into the complexities and repercussions of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) through the lens of a landmark case involving the Maryland-based charity, Planet Aid. The episode features an in-depth conversation with Victoria Baranetsky, General Counsel at the Center for Investigative Reporting.
Bob opens the discussion by outlining the 2016 investigative report by Reveal, the Center for Investigative Reporting’s podcast, which exposed alleged misconduct within Planet Aid. The reporting implicated the charity in misusing U.S. foreign aid, diverting donations to a Danish cult named Tfind, and engaging in fraudulent activities to conceal these schemes from auditors in East Africa.
Victory in the Courtroom
A pivotal moment in the episode is the recounting of the recent legal victory for the Center for Investigative Reporting. Bob states:
"A week ago, a federal judge in California ruled in favor of the center for Investigative Reporting. It was a victory at the expense of millions of dollars in legal fees and thousands of man-hours." [00:02]
Despite the financial and resource burdens, the court's decision underscores the resilience of rigorous journalism against defamation claims.
The Cost of Defending Truthful Reporting
Victoria Baranetsky elaborates on the toll the lawsuit took on the Center for Investigative Reporting:
"Cost us quite a heavy final number, upwards of several millions dollars. But moreover, it costs a lot of time, resources and sleepless nights for myself and everyone else involved with this case." [01:33]
This statement highlights the significant personal and organizational sacrifices made to uphold journalistic integrity.
Understanding SLAPP Lawsuits
Bob characterizes the Planet Aid lawsuit as a quintessential SLAPP suit—initiated not with the expectation of winning, but to harass and financially cripple the defendant. He questions why California's robust anti-SLAPP statutes did not initially protect the Center from such litigation:
"Why didn't that statute help you at the very beginning." [02:36]
Victoria explains the complexities involved:
"There is no federal anti SLAPP legislation. They are passed state by state... so some anti SLAPP laws have attorneys fees afforded at the end, some permit for there to be no discovery." [03:18]
The absence of a unified federal approach allows plaintiffs to exploit varying state laws to their advantage, as seen when the lawsuit was initially filed in Maryland—a state with weaker anti-SLAPP protections—before being moved to California.
Jurisdictional Challenges and Legal Tactics
The discussion delves into the protracted legal battle over jurisdiction. Victoria notes:
"Anti SLAPP laws really vary around the country... parties can try to find a place that will help them along in their anti SLAPP litigation." [06:56]
This strategy, known as forum shopping, aims to locate the most favorable jurisdiction, complicating and extending legal proceedings. The prolonged jurisdictional dispute consumed nearly two years of legal maneuvering.
The Burden of Discovery in SLAPP Cases
A significant hurdle in the lawsuit was the court's decision to allow discovery—a process typically barred in SLAPP suits to prevent undue burden on defendants:
"Even though discovery is not permitted on the state level, if the case is brought into federal court, California federal district courts have begun to permit for discovery in those cases." [04:00]
Victoria criticizes this decision:
"Discovery really just prolongs that. And you should be able to tell enough on the face of the complaint and what's available that there's no merit to the case." [09:40]
The allowance of discovery placed an onerous demand on the Center, requiring them to produce extensive documentation and participate in depositions, thereby draining resources.
Comparisons to the Gawker Case
To contextualize the impact of SLAPP suits, the episode references the infamous Gawker case. Victoria explains:
"Gawker is an infamous case among media council... The lawsuit was brought by these parties because of a video... And multiple times the federal district court said that Gawker was in the right... Ultimately, Gawker didn't have enough money to pay the legal bills or its own electric bills and ended up closing shop." [11:36]
This comparison underscores the existential threat SLAPP lawsuits pose to media organizations, even when their reporting is truthful and protected under the First Amendment.
Implications for Journalism and Free Speech
The episode broadens the discussion to the delicate balance between protecting free speech and preventing the spread of falsehoods. Victoria offers a nuanced perspective:
"There have to be limits... protection for reporting of public figures in a way that allows for reporters to do their job accurately and appropriately and not being penalized for it." [14:34]
She emphasizes the historical misuse of defamation law as a tool for silencing dissent and the necessity of robust anti-SLAPP laws to safeguard journalistic endeavors.
Conclusion: The Need for Stronger Protections
In closing, the conversation highlights the fragmented state of anti-SLAPP legislation in the United States:
"Anti SLAPP laws have been weakened around the country and there is no consistent framework because there is no one federal anti SLAPP law." [15:50]
Victoria advocates for a unified approach to anti-SLAPP protections, ensuring that journalists and media organizations can report without the looming threat of financially debilitating lawsuits.
Final Thoughts
Victoria Baranetsky's insights shed light on the formidable challenges media organizations face in combating SLAPP suits. The episode serves as a cautionary tale about the lengths to which entities may go to silence investigative journalism and underscores the urgent need for comprehensive legal safeguards to protect free speech and transparent reporting.
This summary is based on the transcript provided and captures the key discussions, insights, and conclusions from the "SLAPP Un-Happy" episode of On the Media.