SLAPP “Settlements” are Unsettling
Usually when we think of legal cases reaching “settlement,” we imagine money exchanging hands between the litigants. But when a lawsuit is frivolous in the first place, the Plaintiff’s goal is not to win your money but to coerce you into silence. So the goal of a “settlement” takes on a whole new meaning. For SLAPP filers, the power of a strategic lawsuit against public participation lies not in the probability of a court victory (which is low), but in the likelihood of doing serious financial damage to the defendant through the process of litigation itself (which is high).
The Public Participation Project explains what “settlement” means in the context of a SLAPP lawsuit:
SLAPPs frequently end in settlement, conditioned on silence, apology or retraction, so important ideas are excised from the debate, and critical information – about health, safety, economic security, civil rights and liberties, and government abuse – is withheld from the public. Would-be participants in public life see the devastating effects of lawsuits – on life savings, employment, reputation and even staying insured – and think twice before speaking out.
That scenario appears to be precisely what happened in the Comins v. Butler case, which has been listed as “pending” for over a year.
Once upon a time, Chris Butler was the most vocal advocate of justice for the two maimed huskies, Hoochie and Raley. As the owner of the dogs, and the only other person in the field when Christopher Comins shot them, Butler possessed by far the most effective voice when it came to raising awareness about what transpired on May 19, 2008.
But then the shooter sued him for talking about the tragedy (as the New York Post and ZooToo first reported back in 2008). The Comins camp knew it was crucial that Butler be silenced, and well in advance of the start of Comins’ criminal trial. The lawsuit appears to have done the trick; we have not heard from Butler since it was filed.
The suit alleged the usual SLAPP accusations–including libel, slander, invasion of privacy, and tortious interference with a business relationship.
It was a huge symbolic victory for Christopher Comins when his greatest critic stopped publicly discussing the incident. The outcome was similar to that of most SLAPP suits, in that the case apparently “settled” out of court.
As Peter Kurdock and Mark Goldowitz remind us:
SLAPPs often come at the price of your apology, “correction,” or agreement to refrain from bringing up the topic ever again.
