It is a worrying trend: journalists, (climate) activists, human rights defenders and whistleblowers who publicly raise abuses and get huge legal claims to their pants, aimed at silencing the person or organization.
They are called ‘slaps’: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Partipationa phenomenon that has come over from the United States, but now also has a strong foot on the ground in Europe. According to recent research Of the European coalition against Slapps (Case), a group of more than a hundred social interest groups, 166 Slapp issues were filed in Europe in 2023. It has brought the total number of slapps in Europe since 2010 to 1,049, twelve of which in the Netherlands.
Now every party is free to get her right in the courtroom – an important fundamental right. At the same time, a practice here is unfolding that does not necessarily have the goal of being right, but especially to intimidate the counterparty in such a way that the accused will declare under this legal pressure from his or her further activities. (Freelance) Journalists are the most often target, followed by activists and scientists. The result can be (self) censorship, Research shows.
Read also
Suddenly a flood of claims; Journalists and activists are more often confronted with slapps
At the moment there is a big business in the United States. In the state of North Dakota, a lawsuit of the American energy company Energy Transfer against Greenpeace started on Monday 24 February. The plaintiff accuses Greenpeace of Smaad and the orchestrate of criminal behavior in the ‘Standing Rock Protests’ in 2016 and 2017. Those protests revolved around the construction of an oil pipeline through the area claimed by the native Sioux tribe.
Tens of thousands of people participated in the protest, Greenpeace was one of the dozens of NGOs that signed an open letter – that Energy Transfer blames the environmental organization. Greenpeace is now being charged with a high damage claim of at least $ 300 million. In return for NRC said a Greenpeace lawyer that he is very worried, because of the extremely high costs for the defense.
It is therefore very good that the European Commission took a directive last year to better protect targets of Slapps. It states, among other things, that the defendants can ask the court to reject a case early, so that they are protected against making high costs unnecessary. Just the defense against a weak often costs so much money that the target may be directly convenient to the claimant – a form of intimidation. A defendant must also be able to get the full litigation costs back from the claimant according to the directive, if it has been established that it is a slack.
The question is whether these important elements also come to Dutch law. Controller Free Press Unlimited, who is committed to freedom of press worldwide, signals that the Netherlands is reluctant to these points. Based on the idea that it will not go so fast in the Netherlands. But what is not, can still come – the signs are not favorable, see the increase in the number of slapps.
It is therefore important that the Dutch cabinet also listens well to the warning for the dangers that Slaps entails, such as (self) censorship. Nothing less than the freedom of the press and freedom of expression are at stake here.