Civil Rights and the Citizen Participation Act (H.R. 4364)
Thought that is silenced is always rebellious. Majorities, of course, are often mistaken. This is why the silencing of minorities is necessarily dangerous. Criticism and dissent are the indispensable antidote to major delusions. - Alan Barth
The freedom to assemble peaceably and to petition the government "for redress of grievances" were essential for the myriad sit-ins, marches and protests and for tactics like organized boycotts of merchants and city buses — boycotts that led merchants and city leaders to capitulate. Gene Policinski, President of the First Amendment Center
Those who speak and act out against powerful interests are at risk of becoming SLAPP targets, and many famous civil rights cases, including NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. are examples of SLAPPs.
SLAPPs against civil rights advocates often arise because a citizen or organization speaks out against discriminatory practices. Some SLAPPs take the form of counterclaims against citizens who attempt to secure their rights in judicial or administrative proceedings. In fact, the Spokane News noted in 2007 that its review of two dozen recent civil rights claims showed that Spokane “routinely countersues” citizens who raise civil rights violations, often construing suits to vindicate civil rights as “conspiracy to misuse the judicial process.”
SLAPPs Against Civil Rights
NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982)
• In this landmark civil rights case, a local branch of the NAACP instituted an economic boycott against white merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi to pressure elected officials to adopt several racial justice measures. In response, the merchants sued the NAACP for tortious interference with business. The court found for the merchants and ordered the NAACP to pay $3.5 million in damages, a verdict the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the verdict, holding that “the boycott clearly involved constitutionally protected activity” through which the NAACP “sought to bring about political, social, and economic change.”
Clark v. Jenkins, 102 F.3d 1012 (2008)
• In 2008, members of the Texas civil rights group Black Citizens for Justice, Law and Order brought neighborhood concerns of racist policies to a public meeting. A member of the group took minutes at the meeting, including allegations of racist police acts and derogatory statements made about a local city council member, and forwarded the minutes to the Congress member for the district. The Congress member’s staff forwarded the minutes to the mayor of the town, who sent them to the city council member. The city council member sued, and both the civil rights group and the minute-taker were held liable for defamation, and each ordered to pay $300,000 in damages. The case is now on petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ostrender v . Madsen, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 1665.
• In Washington state, a local organic farmer was arrested in a traffic stop the courts ruled was an illegal "pretext stop." He filed a federal civil rights suit, and the city attorney's office countersued for malicious prosecution, and for defamation based upon "outlandish statements" he made about the police officer involved in the arrest. The Ninth Circuit tossed out the city's malicious prosecution and defamation claims, saying the city had no evidence in support, and the city council paid $20,000 in 2003 to settle the case.
Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012 (1997)
• In Washington state, in 1986, police entered the homes of two Roma (Gypsy) families on a faulty warrant and searched family members – including a baby – who were not the subjects of the warrant. The families sought $59 million in damages, and the city and county countersued in federal court, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The district court dismissed the RICO counterclaims two years later. In 1997, 11 years after the unlawful search, the city paid $1.43 million to settle the case.
The Citizen Participation Act protects civil rights by:
1. Providing immunity from civil liability for good faith petitioning activity (speech or conduct intended to secure a government outcome);
2. Providing a procedure for quick dismissal of meritless lawsuits arising from petition activity or speech in connection with an issue of public interest;
3. Limiting or prohibiting discovery upon a special motion to dismiss; and
4. Allowing defendants who successfully move for dismissal under the law to recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending against the SLAPP.
Please note: Some of the information and commentary contained in this listing are based on court filings and other informational sources that may contain unproven allegations made by the parties. The truthfulness and accuracy of such information may be in dispute.