Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
When a north-central Wisconsin news site reported that a businessman had uttered a homophobic slur, he sued, claiming defamation. The legal bills are piling up.
Thanks, that’s a useful distinction. But I’m still curious why it wouldn’t apply here? The paper can clearly show that it reported in good-faith, so why isn’t it possible to countersue the politician who clearly is trying to harm them via the courts? I would think this would allow them to pursue financial relief for their legal troubles. I must be missing something fundamental about what SLAAP can and cannot provide.
Thanks, that’s a useful distinction. But I’m still curious why it wouldn’t apply here? The paper can clearly show that it reported in good-faith, so why isn’t it possible to countersue the politician who clearly is trying to harm them via the courts? I would think this would allow them to pursue financial relief for their legal troubles. I must be missing something fundamental about what SLAAP can and cannot provide.
That’s not how the law works. You need to tell us why an anti-SLAAP action (which Wisconsin does not have as a cause of action) would apply here.
Ok, so Wisconsin not having these rules is a factor. Thanks!