Defending Against Defamation Cases

The Problem

Environmental defenders often alert the public to wrongdoing or inaction by governments and corporations that leads to harm to the environment and affected communities. In response, some governments and corporations try to silence such criticism by misusing defamation laws to bring criminal cases or civil lawsuits against environmental defenders. This disfavored type of litigation is now known around the world as a "SLAPP suit" (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation).

Defamation laws are designed to protect private individuals from unwarranted and untruthful attacks on their reputations. On the other hand, SLAPPs are used to silence debate on matters of great public importance.

SLAPP defamation suits can be startlingly effective. Only the bravest or most persistent environmental defenders would continue their work under the heavy threat of expensive litigation, large fines or imprisonment. Even a case brought in bad faith can silence defenders and keep the public ignorant of environmental harms.

Differences between Civil and Criminal Defamation Cases

The basic elements of a civil defamation suit are mostly the same everywhere. A plaintiff usually must prove that the defendant (1) made a false statement about the plaintiff (2) to a third party (i.e., someone other than plaintiff) (3) that caused the plaintiff harm. A successful plaintiff can often obtain various kinds of relief- damages, non-monetary sanctions (apologies), and injunctions. While civil defamation laws do not in themselves violate human rights, their misapplication may violate a number of fundamental human rights.

Criminal defamation laws usually have the same basic elements as civil defamation suits: making false, harmful statements about a person to third parties. There are two main ways that criminal defamation laws are different. First, criminal defamation entails criminal punishment- convictions and a fine or possibly imprisonment. Second, in the countries that still retain criminal defamation laws, such laws apply mostly to defamation of public officials or the government.

Criminal prosecutions for defamation are increasingly disfavored in both established and emerging democracies because laws that criminalize speech which does not incite lawless violence are incompatible with freedom of expression. Such laws are particularly violative of the rights of environmental defenders. Environmental speech, by its nature, concerns matters of great public interest. International human rights law is clear that criminal sanctions are never an appropriate means to deal with expressions on matters of public interest.

Human Rights Violated by SLAPPs

Any criminal prosecution or civil defamation suit brought to intimidate, harass or silence an environmental defender has the potential to violate at least three fundamental human rights. The international and regional human rights treaties and other sources of law that protect these particular rights are discussed in Human Rights Law and Remedies.

1 2Next Page »

Brazilian journalist Lucio Flavio Pinto, sued dozens of times for his reporting on environmental devastation and corruption in the Amazon.