Sentences with phrase «against public participation»

This type of lawsuit is a common form of SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation in British Columbia.

The parallel between «lawfare» and what activists from the other end of the spectrum would call a SLAPP suit, or strategic litigation against public participation, is interesting.

about Legislation to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation in British Columbia

Awarding damages is a relatively new aspect in Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation actions, says Callaway.

Recommended Legislative Measures to Counter Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation BC Civil Liberties Association (2012).

This leaves Canadians vulnerable to strategic lawsuits against public participation through the privatization of fundamental civil and political rights in the judicial system.

In July, Zenefits filed a motion to dismiss, citing California's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, aimed at preventing the use of legal action to censor critics.

(SLAPP means: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.)

This practice of legal intimidation, directed at both individuals and organizations who affirm traditional values, we label as SLAPP, for «Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.»

SLAPP is «strategic lawsuit against public participation».

As in: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation...

In a July 3 decision, the judge described the lawsuit as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — or SLAPP suit — noting that the plaintiff did not offer enough evidence that the statements were said in a fraudulent manner.

Any attempt to infringe on that right, whether actual or threatened, will be considered a strategic lawsuit against public participation and treated as such.

This, in my opinion, achieved the objective of the lawsuit that many call SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation).

Individuals are no longer the concern as many fight back, refusing to be bullied into silence by these Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (SLAPP).

Looks like the warmists are getting SLAPP happy (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation).

These strong arm tactics even have an appropriate name: SLAPP or strategic lawsuit against public participation.

S.L.A.P. should it mean S.L.A.P.P. or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation?

(The acronym stands for «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.»)

His challenge sought judicial recognition that he became a victim of strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) when he and four other defendants were sued October 30 by KM.

He explains that a SLAPP is a «strategic lawsuit against public participation,» a suit intended to censor or intimidate critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

The British Columbia legislature may soon enact legislation designed to address strategic lawsuits against public participation, otherwise known as «SLAPPs.»

Many U.S. states have Anti-SLAPP statutes (for strategic lawsuits against public participation) which seriously penalize parties that bring meritless defamation lawsuits (in light of high thresholds for liability for such lawsuits).

SLAPP stands for «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation» or «Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation».

By Jacob Damstra SLAPP Suits and Anti-SLAPP Legislation A strategic lawsuit against public participation — a «SLAPP» suit — or «gag... Read more

SLAPP = Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation.

In 2001 BC enacted the first legislation in Canada against strategic lawsuits against public participation.

A SLAPP suit, or strategic lawsuit against public participation, is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

He challenged the lawsuit on the basis that it was an example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP.

The use of the courts to silence people is known as strategic litigation against public participation — or SLAPP.

SLAPP stands for strategic litigation against public participation and are used by large corporations to silence their critics and prevent them from protesting, thus denying fundamental democratic rights.

«Developing a Response to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.»

A libel lawsuit against Mohammed was dismissed under relatively new provincial rules targeting «strategic lawsuits against public participation,» known as anti-SLAPP measures.

The lawyer filed a motion to dismiss based on the state's anti-SLAPP law — the «strategic litigation against public participation» law that is intended to protect the right to petition the courts.

The provincial statute was introduced by the Ontario government as a means to try to reduce so - called SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) actions against individuals or groups making comments in the public interest.

These suits can be broadly separated into two factions: legitimate defamation suits sometimes called «cybersmears,» and illegitimate suits aimed merely at intimidating critics that resemble illegal Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), which are sometimes called «cyber-SLAPPs.»

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a claim filed against individuals participating in public debate as a means of silencing them.

Danson said that Platnick's charter rights have been violated under Ontario's new anti-SLAPP legislation, which regulates retaliatory «strategic lawsuits against public participation.»

Anti-SLAPP (U.S. state law)-- provides protection against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation («SLAPP»).

Twenty - eight U.S. states, along with the District of Columbia and the territory of Guam, have laws against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs).

But as Pam Smith of Legal Press writes here, that's the scenario in Maughan v. Google, where Justice Miriam Vogel argued that the lower court judge erred in cutting Google's request for attorney fees after prevailing on an anti-SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) motion.