For Lauren … this NOT legal advice.
A slap is not a punch. A punch aims to incapacitate, to end a confrontation through superior force. A slap aims to humiliate, to communicate contempt and hierarchy in a single gesture. The slapper announces: “I can touch you and you cannot touch me back.” Such is the violence of those who believe themselves beyond retaliation, of the abusive employer to the employee, of the powerful toward those who lack the standing to respond in kind.
The legal system has its own version, called a SLAPP: a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
The acronym is no accident. Whoever coined it understood that naming a thing correctly is half the battle against it. A SLAPP does not aim to win on merit. Rather, it aims to punish speech through the machinery of litigation itself.
The Glove Thrown at Your Feet
The SLAPP complaint usually arrives like a dueling glove thrown at a defendant’s feet. In aristocratic culture, the glove was not an attack, but a summons. It declared: “You will meet me on ground I have chosen, with weapons I have selected, under rules that favor me.” The modern complaint functions identically. It does not argue the merits, but challenges the defendant to appear and defend.
The legal system enforces this compulsion, since refusing to answer a lawsuit means defaulting. The plaintiff knows this. The summons itself is the first blow.
Discovery becomes the siege engine. The plaintiff issues document requests demanding years of correspondence, financial records, and confidential communications. Depositions consume weeks of preparation and days of testimony. Subpoenas target journalists’ sources and activists’ networks. The defendant bleeds resources before any court evaluates whether the underlying claim has merit. In jurisdictions without procedural safeguards, this attrition continues for years. The plaintiff rarely expects to prevail at trial; the plaintiff expects the defendant to exhaust themselves before trial arrives.
The cyberSLAPP variant strips away anonymity before the case begins. When critics speak pseudonymously online, the plaintiff subpoenas internet service providers and social media platforms demanding disclosure of the speaker’s identity. The defendant loses their mask before any judge asks whether the complaint states a valid claim. The plaintiff demands to know who spoke out of turn, so that punishment can be administered personally.
Settlement offers arrive with gag provisions attached. The defendant can end the litigation by agreeing never to speak on the underlying subject again. This is not resolution; this is the extraction of silence as a condition of peace. The defendant “wins” by surrendering the right that triggered the lawsuit in the first place. The slap succeeds not by knocking the defendant down but by securing a promise that they will never stand up again.
The Federal Void
The United States has no federal anti-SLAPP statute. Congress has introduced bipartisan legislation repeatedly: the SPEAK FREE Act stalled, the SLAPP Protection Act died in committee, and the Free Speech Protection Act (introduced in December 2024 with sponsors from both parties) remains pending. Lobby pressure, definitional disputes, and institutional caution have defeated every attempt to create a national baseline of protection.
The absence creates a circuit split that sophisticated plaintiffs exploit through forum shopping.
The First, Second, and Ninth Circuits permit some aspects of state anti-SLAPP laws to operate in federal diversity cases, reasoning that these statutes protect substantive First Amendment rights. The Fifth, Seventh, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits reject state anti-SLAPP laws entirely in federal court, treating them as procedural rules that conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A defendant protected in Sacramento state court becomes vulnerable in San Diego federal court—not because the law changed but because the forum did.
The Supreme Court’s January 2026 decision in Berk v. Choy, 604 U.S. _ (2026), signals further erosion. The Court held that state statutes requiring plaintiffs to file evidentiary support with their complaints conflict with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and cannot apply in federal court. Anti-SLAPP motions require precisely such evidentiary showings. Legal analysts recognized immediately that Berk could compel federal courts to reject anti-SLAPP protections even in circuits that currently honor them. The federal void is widening, not closing.
The map offers no safe harbor for those who cannot control which court hears their case.
Geography as Destiny
State-level protection varies from robust to nonexistent. California enacted the benchmark statute in 1992, codified at California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, providing broad coverage, automatic discovery stays, mandatory fee-shifting for prevailing defendants, and immediate appellate rights. The Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, adopted by the Uniform Law Commission in 2020, has since spread to fifteen states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and others now offer meaningful defense against SLAPP abuse. These jurisdictions aim to function as sanctuaries where the procedural immune system can recognize and reject the infection.
Massachusetts illustrates the limitations of narrow statutes.
Its law, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 231, § 59H, protects only petitioning activity directed at government, excluding broader public speech. A journalist reporting on corporate misconduct, a consumer posting an online review, a community member speaking at a neighborhood meeting concerning a private development: none qualify for protection unless they can frame their speech as governmental petition. The gap between constitutional rights and procedural capacity widens into a chasm.
Twelve states offer no anti-SLAPP protection whatsoever. Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia: defendants in these jurisdictions must rely on general procedural rules that provide none of the specialized safeguards anti-SLAPP statutes offer. They face the full siege without the weapons to end it early. The lawsuit becomes a war of attrition the plaintiff expects to win by default.
Even strong-statute states exist within hostile federal circuits.
Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, ORS 31.150–31.155, carries a B+ rating from the Institute for Free Speech, yet Oregon sits within the Ninth Circuit, where the October 2025 decision in Gopher Media LLC v. Melone, No. 24-2626 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2025), eliminated immediate appeals from anti-SLAPP denials in federal court. A defendant sued in Oregon state court enjoys meaningful protection. The same defendant, facing the same claim removed to federal court, loses the appellate safeguard that makes anti-SLAPP motions effective. Geography becomes destiny; the courthouse door determines whether you can fight back.
The Ratchet That Reverses
The anti-SLAPP motion functions as a ratchet that permits movement in only one direction: toward early termination of abusive claims. The defendant does not merely absorb the blow and endure the siege. The defendant challenges the plaintiff’s right to have filed at all. The burden shifts. The plaintiff must demonstrate, early and under heightened scrutiny, that the lawsuit has merit. Failure means dismissal; failure means the defendant recovers attorney fees. The plaintiff who slapped receives a slap on the wrist in return—the ironic inversion that gives the remedy its shape.
The mechanism operates in two steps under statutes like Oregon’s ORS 31.150. First, the defendant must show that the plaintiff’s claims arise from protected activity: speech or petitioning on matters of public concern. If the defendant meets this threshold, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish a probability of prevailing through substantial evidence supporting each element of the claim. The plaintiff must prove the case has merit before discovery unfolds, not after years of attrition have bled the defendant dry.
The discovery stay is essential. Under ORS 31.152, filing the motion freezes all discovery until the court rules; the plaintiff cannot continue the siege while the motion pends.
This protection defeats the SLAPP’s core strategy: using procedure as punishment regardless of ultimate outcome. Without the stay, the plaintiff could drain the defendant’s resources even after the motion is filed, rendering the defense meaningless. Mandatory fee-shifting completes the architecture.
Under ORS 31.152(3), prevailing defendants automatically recover attorney fees calculated at market rates. The plaintiff must calculate not merely the cost of their own litigation but the risk of paying the defendant’s costs when the motion succeeds. The asymmetry that favors SLAPP plaintiffs—they can afford to lose while defendants cannot afford to win—reverses. The weapon bites back.
Intelligence and Interrogation
The procedural weapons described above require intelligence to deploy effectively. The Pro Se Litigator who blindly files an anti-SLAPP motion on pure merit, without understanding opposing counsel’s vulnerabilities, or anticipating their arguments to structure questions that foreclose every escape route, may have innocently brought boxing gloves to a knife-fight.
Two tools separate effective self-representation from futile resistance: OSINT and the Socratic method.
OSINT—open-source intelligence—is the collection and analysis of publicly available information. The term originates in national security contexts, but the methodology applies wherever information asymmetry determines outcomes. Bar association databases reveal disciplinary history and specialization. Court filing systems expose litigation track records. Legal directories like Super Lawyers and Martindale-Hubbell publish peer evaluations and practice area ratings. LinkedIn profiles, firm websites, and professional publications complete the picture. A Pro Se Litigator who invests ten hours in systematic research knows more about opposing counsel than opposing counsel knows about themselves. In that case, a hypothetical haughty landlady, assuming she can dismiss a mere tradesman, runs the risk of facing someone who has studied her lawyers more carefully than they have studied her complaint.
The Socratic Method transforms this intelligence into tactical advantage. It is not interrogation to seek information, but a structured inquiry where every possible answer advances the questioner’s position. “Yes” damages the respondent. “No” damages the respondent. “I don’t know” damages the respondent. This is not a request for data, but a trap with no escape. Cross-examination technique translates directly to litigation strategy: frame questions so that affirmation, denial, and evasion all harm the opponent’s position.
The Pro Se Litigator who applies these techniques to elicitation does not argue, and instead asks questions that render argument unnecessary.
The Count’s Daughter and the Valet
Imagine a Valet who serves in a great house, where the Count’s daughter believes her station permits her to toy with those beneath her. She slaps him in front of witnesses, publicly and without provocation, because she has never faced consequences for misbehavior. Her authority is not earned, but borrowed from her father’s name, performed through affectation, and enforced through the complicity of those who witness but do not intervene.
August Strindberg authored this story in the classic 1888 stage play, Miss Julie, in which an aristocrat’s daughter mistakes proximity to power for possession of it, and whose tragically melodramatic recklessness stems from never having been called to account.
For our present purpose—defining and defeating SLAAP warfare—suppose the Valet does not accept the social grammar that expects him to absorb the blow, and files suit instead. He appears Pro Se because he cannot afford expensive lawyers and refuses to seek a patron who might temper his claims. He demands and names the injury in his own words. He presumes to address the Count’s daughter as an equal before the law.
The lawsuit itself is the slap returned.
The Count’s daughter cannot absorb this inversion, for her presumed identity depends on the hierarchy the Valet’s lawsuit challenges. If an employee can hale her into court and demand she answer for her conduct, then the structure that defines her stands exposed as contingent, as performance, as something requiring everyone else’s cooperation to function. She must fight: not because she can win on the merits but because losing without fighting would confirm what she cannot afford to admit. She was never what she pretended to be. Her authority was always her father’s. She is essentially a child playing dress-up in borrowed finery.
The Tantrum Dressed as Litigation
For the sake of argument, suppose she files a counter-suit, claiming the Valet’s lawsuit is itself the injury: defamation, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress. She demands damages so vast they could only function as theater—seven figures, payable by a man who earns hourly wages. The substance is thin, but substance is not the point.
The point is to make the Valet regret his presumption, to bury him in discovery, to exhaust his resources, to teach him that employees who forget their place will suffer for it.
This is the SLAPP in its purest form: litigation aimed to punish, not to vindicate. The Count’s daughter does not expect to win her counter-claims; she filed because she was offended, not because she had a legal theory. Her lawyers—specialists in mercantile transactions, engaged on credit against an inheritance she has not yet received—have never litigated defamation or civil rights. They indulge her because they assume the case will settle before their lack of expertise matters.
They need only file paper and let procedure do the work of exhaustion.
The Valet, however, has prepared for this contingency, unbeknownst. Before the Count’s daughter can file her counter-suit, he conducts systematic OSINT on every attorney at her firm. He reviews their bar admissions, their published case results, their professional directory listings, and discovers that the lead attorney is a rising star, but only in her narrow arena, an irrelevant domain. Zero defamation cases. Zero civil rights experience. Zero constitutional law background. The Valet knows that he faces an opposing team who wandered into unfamiliar territory and picked a fight with a man whom they do not understand.
He files his anti-SLAPP motion, invoking ORS 31.150. He demands that the Count’s daughter demonstrate, early and under oath, that her counter-claims have merit. He shifts the burden back onto her: “You slapped me, I sued you, and now you claim my lawsuit is the injury? Prove it.” His opposition brief runs forty-three pages with fifty-one exhibits—every careless text message she sent, every contradictory statement she made, every witness who saw her hand connect with his face.
The Trap Door Opens
Her lawyers assumed that filing the counter-suit would trigger discovery. They anticipated subpoenas for the Valet’s financial records, depositions of his associates, document requests designed to consume months of preparation. The discovery stay forecloses this strategy entirely. Under ORS 31.152, filing an anti-SLAPP motion automatically stays all discovery until the court rules on its merits.
The siege cannot begin while the Valet’s challenge pends.
The Valet moves for limited discovery under the good-cause exception recognized in Oregon case law. He does not request broad access to the Count’s daughter’s affairs. He requests specific communications: emails in which she discussed the underlying incident with her father, messages in which she acknowledged facts inconsistent with her counter-claims, internal correspondence revealing whether she knew her accusations were false when she made them. The requests are narrow, targeted, and directly relevant to the question the court must answer: does the count’s daughter have a probability of prevailing, or is her counter-suit the weapon it appears to be?
She faces a trilemma, each option worse than she imagined when she filed. She can produce the communications and watch her admissions doom her claims in open court. She can resist production and invite the inference that she is hiding evidence that would destroy her case. She can withdraw the counter-suit and concede publicly that it was tactical rather than substantive. Her lawyers did not warn her this moment would arrive. How could they anticipate that the Valet had the the necessary skills to fight? The discovery stay—designed to protect defendants from abusive litigation—has become the mechanism that exposes the abuse.
Then, the floor beneath the would-be heiress’ confidence gives way.
Borrowed Authority Bears No Weight
The Count’s daughter’s lawyers lack expertise in the weapon they deployed, mistaking the Valet’s protected speech as defamation without understanding the actual malice standard that governs claims involving public figures. They assert that the Valet’s lawsuit constitutes abuse of process without recognizing that legitimate litigation cannot form the basis for such claims. They file a counter-suit assuming that procedure will substitute for substance, that the Valet will fold before any court examined their theories closely. They are commercial attorneys playing at civil rights law, hoping it will all work out.
The Valet’s opposition brief deploys the Socratic method with surgical precision. He does not merely argue; he poses questions that foreclose every escape route. Under Oregon Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1, an attorney cannot bring or defend a proceeding unless there is a basis in law and fact that is not frivolous.
Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2005-21 defines frivolous as “without factual basis or well-grounded interpretation of law.” He asks: “How can her lawyers, in good faith, argue there is a factual basis for her claims when the documentary evidence contradicts every element?” The question has no safe answer.
- “Yes, there is a factual basis” invites examination of evidence destructive of the assertion
- “No, there is no factual basis” concedes the motion and leads to default
- “We believe there may be a basis” admits they filed without adequate investigation
The brief continues with questions concerning the anti-SLAPP statute itself. Oregon’s anti-SLAPP law, ORS 31.150, protects statements in governmental proceedings, but it explicitly does not protect knowingly false statements. The Count’s daughter’s original statements to authorities—the statements that triggered her grievance when the Valet sued over them—may constitute criminal conduct.
A 2025 Oregon workplace defamation case denied an anti-SLAPP motion, holding that “Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute does not shield private defamatory conduct simply because it is later mentioned in litigation or described as a safety concern.” The Valet asks: Is the count’s daughter seriously arguing that criminal false reporting is protected speech? The question is rhetorical only in the sense that every answer condemns her.
The hearing lasts four hours, during which her lawyers cannot answer basic questions concerning their legal theories. They fumble citations, misstate standards, and visibly lose the judge’s confidence. They prepared for settlement negotiations, not adversarial proceedings. They assumed the Valet would withdraw or accept a face-saving resolution before this moment arrived.
They miscalculated because they misread him, because they believed the social grammar they had always relied upon would hold in the courtroom as it held in the great house.
The court grants the motion. The counter-claims are dismissed with prejudice. Under ORS 31.152(3), the court orders the Count’s daughter to pay the Valet’s attorney fees—calculated at market rates he could never have afforded on his own—within sixty days. The fee award does not make him whole; years of litigation cannot be undone by a check. The award demonstrates that the system can recognize inversion when it occurs, that procedural weapons can be turned against those who misuse them, that employees who refuse to accept the grammar of hierarchy can indeed prevail.
The Verdict
Victory is contingent on filing in a jurisdiction with a strong anti-SLAPP statute, on a court that takes the motion seriously rather than deferring to the represented party against the Pro Se Litigator, on opposing counsel making errors that more sophisticated counsel would have avoided (i.e. taking a case that wiser peers declined), on evidence the Valet happened to possess, on communications she carelessly preserved, on a paper trail that proved what might otherwise have remained a game of He Said, She Said.
Change any variable and outcomes can shift.
- File in federal court, where the circuit split forecloses the state statute’s protections
- Face lawyers who understand doctrine and structure claims to survive the motion
- Lack the specific evidence proving actual malice
- Encounter a judge who views Pro Se Litigators with suspicion
Defenses exist, but their availability depends on geography, forum, and the capacity to navigate procedural complexity without the resources that would make such work straightforward. The Count’s daughter understood something the Valet’s victory does not erase. The system permits her conduct more often than it punishes it.
Most employees do not sue. Most who sue do not know anti-SLAPP motions exist, nor can they deploy them to decisive effect. Most who file such motions have not conducted OSINT on opposing counsel, have not structured their questions using Socratic method, and have not researched the specific statutes and precedents that transform procedural architecture into tactical advantage. A Valet may indeed prevail if he prepares as if his life depends on it. In many cases, it does.
SLAPP warfare continues in every district where defendants find willing counsel to pervert justice when retaliation seems unlikely.
Leave a comment