Talk:Strategic lawsuit against public participation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Gunns 20 - Australian SLAPP

Gunns 20 - Wikipedia : Gunns Limited, a Timber and woodchip product company in Australia is sueing 17 individual activists, including Federal Greens Senator Bob Brown, as well as three not-for-profit environmental groups, for over 7.8 million dollars. Gunns claims that the defendants have sullied their reputation and caused them to lose profits, the defendants claim that they are simply protecting the environment. The defendants have become collectively known as the Gunns 20. It is widely believed that this move is intended to tie up these activists in court proceedings, during which time Gunns intend to build a Pulp Mill in northern Tasmania. The move is possibly also intended to scare off other activists... w:Gunns 20 --ErnMalley 16:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

--


would the lengthy UK MacDonalds libel case be one of these? -- Tarquin

I am not sure how the Scientology cases warrant mention but no others do. Having examples of several organizations handing out SLAPPs would make much better for POV than reference to a single organization, especially one as controversial as scientology. --67.134.44.82 17:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, all their actions should be listed, but perhaps in their own special section.

[edit] Removed external links

I removed a few external links, which seemed to be part of an agenda-pushing, book-selling campaign across wikipedia. It seems like there are already a fair amount of external links for the California case, anyway.

kmccoy (talk) 08:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I'd love to see further explanation what separates SLAPP from a justified lawsuit. Who determines, how?

Think of the SLAPP as a kind of special version of the demurrer. Anyway, if a judge really screws up and grants an anti-SLAPP dismissal they shouldn't have (that is, the lawsuit was legitimate and not merely to harass), then the plaintiff can always appeal and get the dismissal vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. --Coolcaesar 04:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV-check

This page seems to be entirely based on one website. That is giving it a large bias IMO. Ansell 08:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The bias seems not to be significant. The article just factually discusses the matter; while it has nothing positive about SLAPP, it as well has nothing negative. The overall picture is caused by the subject itself, not the article, so I think POV check template is not needed. However, I'll watch it in case there are objections or suggestions. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 09:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/r/Talk%7EStrategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation_0d4c.html"