When a north-central Wisconsin news site reported that a businessman had uttered a homophobic slur, he sued, claiming defamation. The legal bills are piling up.
Thanks, that’s a useful distinction. But I’m still curious why it wouldn’t apply here? The paper can clearly show that it reported in good-faith, so why isn’t it possible to countersue the politician who clearly is trying to harm them via the courts? I would think this would allow them to pursue financial relief for their legal troubles. I must be missing something fundamental about what SLAAP can and cannot provide.
SLAPP isn’t a law, it’s a way to describe abuse of the system that’s mostly legal as long as it doesn’t reach the point of frivolity.
Thanks, that’s a useful distinction. But I’m still curious why it wouldn’t apply here? The paper can clearly show that it reported in good-faith, so why isn’t it possible to countersue the politician who clearly is trying to harm them via the courts? I would think this would allow them to pursue financial relief for their legal troubles. I must be missing something fundamental about what SLAAP can and cannot provide.
That’s not how the law works. You need to tell us why an anti-SLAAP action (which Wisconsin does not have as a cause of action) would apply here.
Ok, so Wisconsin not having these rules is a factor. Thanks!