stLouISTFrivolous suits stalk journalists in states without anti-SLAPP laws
Wisconsin is one of seventeen states without a law that protects journalists and other speakers from frivolous lawsuits meant to chill speech. At least one local newspaper is paying the price.
Gary Waters/Ikon Images via AP Photo.A small nonprofit newspaper in Wisconsin recently won a legal victory against a frivolous defamation lawsuit. But sometimes winning isn’t enough.
The case against the Wausau Pilot & Review is a prime example of how resentful subjects of reporting can weaponize the legal system to attack the First Amendment. Without strong laws that protect against meritless lawsuits that chill speech, known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, even journalists who win can lose.
Lawsuit thrown out, but at what cost?
Last week, a state appeals court threw out a defamation lawsuit against the Pilot & Review brought by Cory Tomczyk, a local businessman turned state senator. Tomcyzk sued the newspaper after it published a report that he had used an anti-gay slur at a county meeting.
A trial court dismissed Tomcyzk’s suit last year, but he appealed. Now, the appeals court has thrown the case out again, concluding that Tomcyzk hadn’t met the legal standard to make his case.
The Pilot & Review and its reporters should be celebrating this First Amendment victory. But because Wisconsin doesn’t have an anti-SLAPP law, their win may actually turn into a loss.
The Pilot & Review has spent nearly $200,000 on legal bills so far, according to its editor Shereen Siewert. That’s almost as much as the newspaper spends each year to run its newsroom. And Tomcyzk could appeal again, forcing the newspaper to rack up more expenses.
Those costs have a real impact on local journalism. Siewert told Wisconsin Public Radio that the newspaper “had to put hiring on hold” because of the lawsuit. The New York Times reported last year that legal expenses could put the newspaper out of business.
Anti-SLAPP laws needed in all 50 states
Thankfully the Pilot & Review has scraped by, in part because of donations. But no news outlet should have to rely on the kindness of strangers to survive a defamation lawsuit that it wins.
The costs of SLAPPs can be staggering. For instance, in 2022, the Center for Investigative Reporting received a more than $1.92 million settlement to cover its legal fees from a SLAPP plaintiff.
In California and many states, the news media and other speakers are protected by anti-SLAPP laws. But not in Wisconsin or 16 other states.
Anti-SLAPP laws give people who are sued for exercising their First Amendment rights tools to fight back. They often allow for cases to be dismissed early, before costs rise, and give winning defendants the right to recoup their legal fees. As a result, SLAPP victims are less likely to be intimidated into silence.
Anti-SLAPP laws don’t just protect the speakers. They also protect the public’s right to know. When journalists and whistleblowers have confidence that they won’t be crushed by legal costs for reporting or speaking out, more information about important issues like corruption, corporate wrongdoing, and crime makes it to the public.
That’s why we need every state — and the federal government — to pass strong anti-SLAPP protections.
Protect local nonprofit journalism with anti-SLAPP laws
Anti-SLAPP laws are particularly important for nonprofit news outlets, like the Pilot & Review, which are increasingly filling the gap in a news media ecosystem that’s been devastated by the closure of newsroom after newsroom.
Nonprofit newsrooms that operate on shoestring budgets and lack in-house legal help are especially vulnerable to SLAPPs. In 2023, the Institute for Nonprofit News reported a medium revenue of about $477,000 for its members, an amount that could be quickly exhausted by just a single SLAPP.
But even relatively larger nonprofit news outlets can be harmed by SLAPPs. ProPublica Managing Editor Charles Ornstein recently wrote about the toll of a six-year libel battle based on his reporting. The case is just one of six in which ProPublica and its journalists have been unsuccessfully sued for defamation since the news outlet was founded.
ProPublica spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend itself in the case based on Ornstein’s reporting, through multiple rounds of appeals. Its journalists spent “dozens of hours gathering materials and working with lawyers” that could have otherwise been spent on reporting. Ornstein was even denied a mortgage because he disclosed he was a defendant in a lawsuit.
The case was eventually thrown out under Texas’s anti-SLAPP law. But future SLAPP victims in Texas might not get the same protections. State lawmakers have repeatedly targeted the law, and this week they’ll hold a hearing that may be a step toward gutting it.
That would be a step backward, and one that could devastate Texans’ right to know about what’s happening in their communities.
Texas, Wisconsin, and every state and the federal government need strong anti-SLAPP laws that protect First Amendment rights. Without them, wealthy and powerful people and corporations will continue to use the legal system to attack the reporting that holds them to account, and journalists who face SLAPPs will be in a no-win situation.
