Hacker News Reader

Comment by nerdsniper | Hacker News Reader

Anti-SLAPP is a great tool to have, but we do need slightly stronger ones. It’s a tough balance to find - to minimize the potential ways to abuse the system for all different kinds of entities/people.

YouTube’s TOS would be the most critical place to begin in terms of evaluating legal options. To file a “DMCA” (not really DMCA but YT’s proprietary version of it) claimants generally have to create an account and agree to the TOS. So it may bind both parties (the YTer and the abusive DMCA claimant). That might limit legal options for anti-SLAPP, tortious interference, etc.

But without either significant legal expertise or someone finding some particularly relevant case law, it seems like a nuanced enough domain that no one’s lay “legal” opinion would be particularly illuminating.

View on HN

As the recipient of a SLAPP lawsuit (~decade ago) for truth I published online, the biggest problem with Anti-SLAPP statutes is that laypeople (particularly poorer ones) have limited access to attorney representation... the judicial system isn't accessible/friendly to the pro se litigant.

So even if the case is clearly being used to strategicly silence you, it'll probably still work (from plaintiff's POV). Same for DMCA.

With a strong Anti-SLAPP statute, the person who files the lawsuit is on the hook for the defendant's legal fees, which would (in theory) let the defendant hire an attorney on contigency fees.

Of course, one of the other issues is there's no federal Anti-SLAPP statute, and circuits are split as to whether or not state Anti-SLAPP applies to federal lawsuits, so if someone can diversity jurisdiction you into a federal SLAPP lawsuit, you're kind of stuck.

"if someone can diversity jurisdiction you into a federal SLAPP lawsuit"

Sounds like a CivPro hypothetical exam question that would give law students nightmares.

>which would (in theory) let the defendant hire an attorney on contigency fees

You'd better have a slam-dunk of a case if you're going to easily find contingency lawyers. The worst thing you can be is just "too rich" to qualify for pro bono representation... but even then, you still need a slam-dunk case.

I am currently in the process of suing somebody (plaintiff), for the first time in my many decades, and am a semi-retired electrician of average savings... and it is expensive and probably not worth my time but (in theory) hopefully worth it on principle.

So ready for this to be over with; the lawyers will certainly get their$.

My pitch for an improved system is to give defendants the opportunity to file a lawyer-less motion for summary dismissal, which is 1) geared towards being filled out by a layperson and 2) doesn't disqualify you from a subsequent filing for summary dismissal once you get a lawyer. Basically, an initial "this is a stupid lawsuit, here's why" type deal.

And then fine plaintiffs (and pay the defendants) that lose a summary dismissal, because if your case can be thrown out before trial, it was a shit case that should have never been filed in the first place.

then this will get filed by every corporation against every lawsuit

Is that not an absolute win?

Sure. But they're probably not going to have significantly different content than their normal motion for summary dismissal, so it adds, say, 25% more work for the courts compared to the normal process of motions for summary dismissal, while greatly benefiting individual defendants.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com