Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

IL Supreme Court narrows state’s SLAPP law

Posted in:

Illinois

* Earlier this week, we talked about how a candidate who felt he’d been libeled on the campaign trail was blocked by a Cook County judge from suing because of the Illinois’ Citizen Participation Act, which is designed to prevent “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” or SLAPPs.

The Illinois Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the law today, ruling that legitimate defamation lawsuits are not covered by the statute. The case is Sandholm v. Kuekcker…

We believe that, had the legislature intended to radically alter the common law by imposing a qualified privilege on defamation within the process of petitioning the government, it would have explicitly stated its intent to do so.

* The unanimous opinion seems pretty reasonable…

It is entirely possible that defendants could spread malicious lies about an individual while in the course of genuinely petitioning the government for a favorable result. For instance, in the case at bar, plaintiff alleges that defendants defamed him by making statements that plaintiff abused children, did not get along with colleagues, and performed poorly at his job. Assuming these statements constitute actionable defamation, it does not follow that defendants were not genuinely attempting to achieve a favorable governmental result by pressuring the school board into firing the plaintiff. If a plaintiff’s complaint genuinely seeks redress for damages from defamation or other intentional torts and, thus, does not constitute a SLAPP, it is irrelevant whether the defendants’ actions were “genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, or outcome.” Thus, plaintiff’s suit would not be subject to dismissal under the Act. […]

It is apparent that the true goal of plaintiff’s claims is not to interfere with and burden defendants’ free speech and petition rights, but to seek damages for the personal harm to his reputation from defendants’ alleged defamatory and tortious acts. Defendants have not met their burden of showing that plaintiff’s suit was based solely on their petitioning activities.

* The Court also upheld the law’s constitutionality….

All of plaintiff’s arguments alleging that the Act is unconstitutional are based on the assumption that the Act establishes a privilege for defendants who engage in defamatory acts in the process of petitioning the government. Because we hold that the legislature did not intend to establish such a privilege, we do not find the statute unconstitutional under any of the grounds raised by plaintiff.

* From the statute…

Acts in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association, and participation in government are immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose, except when not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, or outcome.

[Hat tip to an eagle-eyed commenter.]

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 11:13 am

Comments

Good. Researchers are cheaper than lawyers anyway. Get your attacks right and avoid all of this nonsense.

Comment by Dirt Digger Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:00 pm
Told you so.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:31 pm
Congrats, Yellow Dog.

Comment by Anon III Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:36 pm
I should add that while SEIU has a case pending where they invoke the SLAPP defense, they should be relieved by the court’s narrowing.

In the upcoming debate over public pensions, I expect some pretty fierce, malicious, and scurrilous attacks to be made against the unions.

And no one is maligned more frequently than SEIU in political ads, except maybe Mike Madigan.

All’s fair in love and war, and politics, except statements that are untruthful, which are still subject to civil action.

So yeah, hire a good researcher, and make sure your communications team understands the importance of truthiness.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 12:38 pm
Yet another blow to Cong. Joe Walsh

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 1:52 pm
Finally, a way to combat egregious campaign tactics. This is a big win for voters.

Comment by Mom Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 2:17 pm
Good finding.

Though I am afraid it will also be a big win for lawyers associated with campaigns, who might make defamation suits part of the campaigns, if we’re not careful.

Comment by mark walker Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 3:10 pm