Government to Enable SLAPP Suits … the only state in Australia

Heidi Douglas and Defendant 5 … Image from here

Attorney General Vanessa Goodwin will reopen opportunities for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP suits) if she proceeds with plans to allow large corporations to sue for defamation.

“Has Dr Goodwin learned nothing from the infamous Gunns 20 case, where environmentalists were sued by Gunns Ltd in a blatant attempt to prevent them from speaking out?”

“In Budget Estimates last year Dr Goodwin did not even know what a SLAPP suit was. It beggars belief that she is continuing along a path that threatens the rights of Tasmanians to fully participate in some of the most crucial debates about Tasmania’s future.”

“Corporations have had too much power handed to them by parliaments around Australia over recent years, to the detriment of ordinary people and freedom of speech.”

“Companies with deep pockets can look forward to more chances to sue Tasmanians under a compliant government which seems more interested in profit than people.”

• Peg Putt: Vow to stand up for free speech … Markets For Change says Tasmania is precipitating a national fight and has vowed not to be intimidated or silenced in the face of proposed Tasmanian government legislation designed to stifle free speech and undermine uniform national defamation laws.

• Vanessa Goodwin: Tasmanian government standing up for Tasmanian jobs …

• Tonight (Tuesday) is your last chance …

• Guardian: Tasmania moves to allow corporations to sue protesters for defamation The Tasmanian government has committed to giving corporations the right to sue protesters for defamation, part of a package of anti-protest laws that included legislation last year which beefed up jail sentences and fines for “unlawful” demonstrations. The state’s attorney general, Vanessa Goodwin, said the government “remains committed to implementing” the change, which would make Tasmania the only jurisdiction in the country where corporations could seek such redress. … The president of the Tasmanian Law Society, Matthew Verney, said the proposed laws were unnecessary and “impinged on people’s ability to speak freely”. Goodwin is yet to table any legislation, but Verney said “the noises that have been made about it suggest that it’s going to be very draconian”. “Ostensibly it would look like the current state government is trying to limit speech and limit criticism of things like the forestry industry. But the worry for us is that it would go far beyond the forestry industry,” he said. Nationally consistent libel laws were introduced in 2006 removing the right of corporations to sue for defamation, but retaining their right to make a similar claim, injurious falsehood, where it can be proved that a malicious statement had a financial impact. It is likely that under any new defamation law in Tasmania, corporations would not need to prove economic loss, only that the reputation of the company was disparaged by a false or misleading claim.

MEANWHILE … China – Tasmania’s great investment hope – goes the opposite way …

• Guardian: China encourages environmental groups to sue polluters China on Wednesday granted public interest groups more power to sue those that flout environmental protection laws, the country’s highest court said, as Beijing steps up efforts to curb pollution that regularly chokes major cities. Social groups that work to fight polluters judicially will gain special status and have court fees reduced, the Supreme People’s Court said on its website. They will also be allowed to sue firms or individuals across China, regardless of where the organisation is based.

• Karl’s view: A good win for organised crime …

• John Biggs, in Comments: SLAPP suits and defamation suits are surely entirely different. Defence in defamation is that what is said is true and it is in the public interest to say it. SLAPP suits are not based on truth or public interest but on whether the company can argue successfully that they have lost profits. So what Hodgman and Co are proposing is a totally new dimension of litigation that favours the corporate world but threatens ordinary citizens who are genuinely concerned about the deleterious effects of the operations of a company and publicly state their concern in the public interest. This is government backed corporate fascism.