* Long set-ups usually result in fewer responses, but we’re gonna try anyway. The Tribune has a very well-written, balanced piece on the state’s new “Citizens Participation Act,” which a pro-life group claims was misused against it. The whole thing started over the nasty fight about a Planned Parenthood center in Aurora. The right-to-life groups were doing their best to stop it and Planned Parenthood retaliated with some harsh words…
Scheidler sued Steve Trombley, president of Planned Parenthood of Illinois, alleging libel for saying to the Aurora City Council, and in an ad in a local newspaper, that the [Pro-Life Action League] has “a well-documented history of violence.”
* Planned Parenthood’s response to the suit…
“Illinois’ Citizen Participation Act . . . specifically protects the constitutional right to engage in the very type of speech that is at issue here,” Planned Parenthood said in a court filing.
* Here’s the relevant statutory language…
Acts in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association, and participation in government are immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose, except when not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, or outcome.
* More on Planned Parenthood’s response…
It argues for dismissal on a variety of familiar grounds: because the allegedly defamatory statements were true, because they can be given an innocent construction, because they didn’t even refer to the individual plaintiffs.
But leading the list is the assertion that the Citizen Participation Act gives Planned Parenthood “absolute immunity against plaintiffs’ claims.” That’s because the organization was campaigning for local political support, and the CAP — to quote it — provides that “acts in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association, and participation in government . . . are immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose” [emphasis added]
* Even the sponsor is a bit surprised that the law was used this way…
Illinois State Sen. John Cullerton called himself a Planned Parenthood supporter but acknowledged its use of the act was not what he had in mind when he pushed for it to become law. Still it is the judge’s decision as to “whether or not that law is appropriate to the facts,” he said.
* A bit more background…
[David Ardia, director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard Law School] said anti-SLAPP laws got their start in the 1970s as environmentalists spoke out against big developers. “If we didn’t have them, we would have significantly reduced public speech on many, many important public issues,” Ardia said.
* Question: Does the state law go too far, or is it necessary to stop lawsuits which can chill free speech? Explain fully, please.