Model Training Materials: Hate Speech, Defamation and National Security its 2021 decision in Palacio Urrutia v. Ecuador, the Inter-American Court of Human rights stated: [T]he Court considers that the recurrence of public officials resorting to judicial channels to file lawsuits for crimes of slander or insult, not with the objective of obtaining a rectification but to silence the criticisms made regarding their actions in the public sphere, constitutes a threat to freedom of expression. This type of process, known as "SLAPP" (strategic lawsuit against public participation), constitutes an abusive use of judicial mechanisms that must be regulated and controlled by the States, with the aim of allowing effective exercise of freedom of expression. 101 In 2022, the European Court of Human Rights also explicitly referenced SLAPPs when reviewing the applicable law relevant to a case involving an abusive lawsuit brought by a State entity. 102 Earlier cases, although not using the term, have struck down SLAPP-like lawsuits. For example, in Steel and Morris v. United Kingdom, the Court considered a lawsuit brought by McDonalds against two activists who distributed anti-Macdonalds flyers. It found that the heavy fine levelled on the activists, in conjunction with the inequality in power between the activists and the corporation and the fact that legal aid had not been provided to the activists, constituted a violation of the right to fair trial and to freedom of expression.103 Despite increased interest in anti-SLAPP laws, relatively few jurisdictions have adopted them. Various states and provinces in the United States, Canada and Australia all have antiSLAPP laws but otherwise such laws are largely lacking globally, although the situation is set to change in Europe, where the European Commission has developed a recommendation and draft directive on SLAPPs.104 Overall, according to the UN Special Rapporteur, globally, “much more needs to be done by States” to address abuse of the judicial system to harass journalists.105 Greater discussion is also needed regarding the best strategy for combatting SLAPPs in different contexts. Anti-SLAPP laws must be crafted with care to ensure that they will accomplish their intended goal, avoid inappropriately infringing on fair trial rights and avoid empowering new forms of malicious conduct. Difficult questions arise around how to define public interest speech and the grounds on which the court will grant an early dismissal. Furthermore, depending on the context, anti-SLAPP laws of the type described above may not be the most effective Urrutia v. Ecuador, note 98, para. 95. OOO Memo v. Russia, 15 March 2022, Application No. 2840/10, para. 23, https://bit.ly/3t2UFfh. 103 Steel and Morris v. United Kingdom, 15 May 2005, Application No. 6846/01, https://bit.ly/3UdXCpc. 104 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”), COM/2022/177 final, 27 April 2022, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0177. 105 UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, Reinforcing media freedom and the safety of journalists in the digital age, note 85, para. 69. 101 102 The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 24