{"id":950,"date":"2022-09-21T14:44:09","date_gmt":"2022-09-21T13:44:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/?post_type=publication&p=950"},"modified":"2022-09-22T10:59:05","modified_gmt":"2022-09-22T09:59:05","slug":"types-of-claims","status":"publish","type":"publication","link":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"Types of Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

SLAPP Suits<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Defamation suits are being abused to silence critics and journalists.\u00a0 The term \u201cstrategic lawsuits against public participation\u201d (SLAPPs) is being used to describe cases which aim intentionally to bury critics under expensive and baseless legal claims in order to intimidate and silence them.\u00a0 The objective in these cases is not a positive judgment but rather to leverage the threat of financial damage through costly litigation.\u00a0 Defamation allegations are often used as the underlying complaints in SLAPP suits.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In many cases, courts have found against plaintiffs bringing such suits. For example, in the case of Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd v. Hue Shieh Lee<\/em>,[footnote]Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-125-11\/2017(W) (2017) (accessible at: https:\/\/elaw.org\/system\/files\/attachments\/publicresource\/raub_fedcourt_2019.pdf<\/a>).[\/footnote] <\/p>\n\n\n\n

a mining company brought a complaint for libel and malicious falsehood before the Malaysian courts against the author of two articles. In these articles, the author had alleged the existence of medical complications suffered by residents in the vicinity of the company\u2019s mining operations. Although the suit ultimately failed, the mere threat of costly, protracted litigation against well-financed corporations can have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression of activists and journalists. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A limited number of jurisdictions, such as certain provinces in Canada,[footnote]Osler, O\u2019Brien and Tsilivis, \u2018Ontario Court of Appeal clarifies test under \u201canti-SLAPP\u201d legislation\u2019 (2018) (accessible at: https:\/\/www.osler.com\/en\/resources\/regulations\/2018\/ontario-court-of-appeal-clarifies-test-under-anti-slapp-legislation<\/a>).[\/footnote] have adopted anti-SLAPP legislation to protect freedom of expression by allowing baseless defamation and other cases to be dismissed at an early stage of the proceedings and sometimes also to provide for special remedies for defendants to reclaim costs from the claimants.\u00a0 However, there is a need for much more widespread adoption of such anti-SLAPP laws to protect critical speech. A 2020 study from the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre found that in 2019 Southeast Asia was the region with the second highest incidence of recorded SLAPP suits (after Central America) and that the Philippines was the only state in the region with legislation defining SLAPPs, albeit with its application restricted to environmental cases.[footnote]Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, \u2018Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation: Southeast Asia cases & recommendations for governments, businesses, & civil society\u2019 (2020) (accessible at: https:\/\/media.business-humanrights.org\/media\/documents\/files\/SLAPPs_in_SEA_2020_Final.pdf<\/a>).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

Online harassment as a method of suppressing dissent<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Online harassment of journalists using non-legal means is another too-often used method of stifling freedom of expression and dissent. Women journalists have been found to disproportionately be subjected to online harassment.[footnote]UNESCO, \u2018Online violence against women journalists: a global snapshot of incidence and impacts\u2019 (2020), accessible at: https:\/\/unesdoc.unesco.org\/ark:\/48223\/pf0000375136<\/a>).[\/footnote] Online harassment can take many forms, including surveillance, posting threatening messages, hacking, doctoring or sharing personal images and other forms of \u2018doxxing\u2019 (i.e. maliciously sharing personal or identifying information).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anonymous harassing messages can be difficult to trace but, when part of a broader pattern of online harassment, they may be evidence of a state-sponsored campaign to harass dissidents. In Vietnam, for example, Amnesty International reported dozens of incidents of activists receiving threatening online messages.[footnote]Amnesty International, \u2018 \u201cLet Us Breath!\u201d Censorship and Criminalization of Online Expression in Vietnam\u2019 (2020) at p. 51, s. 4.3.2. (accessible at: https:\/\/www.amnesty.org\/en\/documents\/asa41\/3243\/2020\/en\/<\/a>).[\/footnote]The report noted that the deputy head of the Vietnamese military\u2019s political department had in December 2017 introduced a cyberspace military battalion made up of around 10,000 \u2018cyber-troops\u2019 tasked with information warfare and correcting what the government deemed \u201cdistorted information on the internet\u201d.[footnote]Id.<\/em> at s. 4.3.3, pp. 52-53.[\/footnote] <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Insult Laws<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A number of insult and other related laws are still in place across Asia and continue to pose risks for journalists and others critical of government. Thailand, for example, has particularly draconian \u2018l\u00e8se majest\u00e9\u2019<\/em> laws, with one individual receiving a 43-year prison sentence for insulting the royal family, a sentence that elicited condemnation by multiple UN special rapporteurs.[footnote]United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, \u2018Thailand: UN experts alarmed by rise in use of l\u00e8se-majest\u00e9 laws\u2019 (2021) (accessible at: https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/en\/press-releases\/2021\/02\/thailand-un-experts-alarmed-rise-use-lese-majeste-laws?LangID=E&NewsID=26727<\/a>).[\/footnote] Likewise, the crime of sedition remains on the statute books in many countries and continues to be used to stifle freedom of expression.\u00a0 Sedition has been defined as the crime of \u201cincitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.\u201d[footnote]Merriam Webster Dictionary, \u2018Sedition\u2019 (accessible at: https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/sedition<\/a>).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A more recent development has been the passing of \u2018false news\u2019 laws in various countries.\u00a0 These laws are justified by states as being necessary to protect national security or public order and to deal with the misinformation pandemic that has been unleashed by the growth of the internet and social media.\u00a0 Inasmuch as they generally prohibit the dissemination of false news, these laws represent a breach of the right to freedom of expression. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The UN Human Rights Committee and regional courts, including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights<\/a>, the African Court on Human and Peoples\u2019 Rights<\/a> and the European Court of Human Rights<\/a>, have increasingly argued that public officials should enjoy less<\/em> protection from criticism than others.[footnote]General Comment 34 at para. 38; Magyar Jeti Zrt v. Hungary<\/em>, above at n 44, paras. 81-82; Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay<\/em>, Merits, Reparations and Costs, H.R. (ser. C) No. 111 (2004) at para. 103 (accessible at: https:\/\/www.corteidh.or.cr\/docs\/casos\/articulos\/seriec_111_ing.pdf<\/a>; and Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Rwanda<\/em>, Application No. 003\/2014 (2017) at para. 142 (accessible at: https:\/\/www.african-court.org\/en\/images\/Cases\/Judgment\/003-2014-Ingabire%20Victoire%20Umuhoza%20V%20Rwanda%20-%20Judgement%2024%20November%202017.pdf<\/a>).[\/footnote] Because of their status, access to the media, and power, public officials can use their office to try to curtail freedom of expression and prosecute critics.\u00a0 Additional protections for those who criticise them may therefore be warranted to counter this imbalance of power.\u00a0 In addition, there is a real need for those serving in public office to be open to criticism and public input.\u00a0 As the European Court found:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe [politician] inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and he must display a greater degree of tolerance, especially when he himself makes public statements that are susceptible of criticism.\u201d[footnote]Oberschlick v. Austria, <\/em>Application No. 20834\/92 (1997), para 29 (accessible at: https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng?i=001-58044<\/a>). For more on this topic, see the seminal case establishing the need for public officials to face a higher threshold of criticism, New York Times v Sullivan<\/em> in the United States Supreme Court, 376 US 254 (1964) at paras. 279-80 (accessible at: https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/376\/254\/<\/a>).[\/footnote]<\/p>Oberschlick v. Austria, <\/em>Application No. 20834\/92 (1997), para 29<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR<\/a>) has also called for the abolition of the offence of \u2018defamation of the State,\u2019[footnote]OHCHR, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Serbia and Montenegro, CCPR\/CO\/81\/SEMO (12\/08\/2004) at para. 22 (accessible at: https:\/\/www.refworld.org\/docid\/42ce6cfe4.html<\/a>).[\/footnote] and some jurisdictions have refused to allow public authorities, as such, to sue for defamation.[footnote]OHCHR, \u2018Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression,\u2019 E\/CN.4\/2000\/63 (2000) (accessible at: https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/en\/issues\/freedomopinion\/pages\/annual.aspx<\/a>).[\/footnote] The ECtHR has limited such suits to situations which threaten public order, implying that governments cannot sue in defamation simply to protect their honour.[footnote]Id<\/em>.[\/footnote]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SLAPP Suits Defamation suits are being abused to silence critics and journalists.\u00a0 The term \u201cstrategic lawsuits against public participation\u201d (SLAPPs) is being used to describe cases which aim intentionally to bury critics under expensive and baseless legal claims in order to intimidate and silence them.\u00a0 The objective in these cases is not a positive judgment […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"parent":938,"menu_order":118,"template":"page-templates\/chapter.php","publication-category":[],"class_list":["post-950","publication","type-publication","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nTypes of Claims | eReader<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-claims\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Types of Claims | eReader\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"SLAPP Suits Defamation suits are being abused to silence critics and journalists.\u00a0 The term \u201cstrategic lawsuits against public participation\u201d (SLAPPs) is being used to describe cases which aim intentionally to bury critics under expensive and baseless legal claims in order to intimidate and silence them.\u00a0 The objective in these cases is not a positive judgment […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-claims\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"eReader\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-09-22T09:59:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-5-defamation\\\/types-of-claims\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-5-defamation\\\/types-of-claims\\\/\",\"name\":\"Types of Claims | eReader\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-09-21T13:44:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-09-22T09:59:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-5-defamation\\\/types-of-claims\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-5-defamation\\\/types-of-claims\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-5-defamation\\\/types-of-claims\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Publications\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Modules on Litigating Freedom of Expression and Digital Rights in South and Southeast Asia\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"Module 5: Defamation\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-5-defamation\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":5,\"name\":\"Types of Claims\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/\",\"name\":\"eReader\",\"description\":\"Media Defence\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Types of Claims | eReader","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-claims\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Types of Claims | eReader","og_description":"SLAPP Suits Defamation suits are being abused to silence critics and journalists.\u00a0 The term \u201cstrategic lawsuits against public participation\u201d (SLAPPs) is being used to describe cases which aim intentionally to bury critics under expensive and baseless legal claims in order to intimidate and silence them.\u00a0 The objective in these cases is not a positive judgment […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-claims\/","og_site_name":"eReader","article_modified_time":"2022-09-22T09:59:05+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-claims\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-claims\/","name":"Types of Claims | eReader","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-09-21T13:44:09+00:00","dateModified":"2022-09-22T09:59:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-claims\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-claims\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-claims\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Publications","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Modules on Litigating Freedom of Expression and Digital Rights in South and Southeast Asia","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Module 5: Defamation","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":5,"name":"Types of Claims"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/","name":"eReader","description":"Media Defence","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/950","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publication"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/938"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"publication-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication-category?post=950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}