New Hampshire introduces Anti-SLAPP law to protect First Amendment rights

House Bill 391, recently introduced in the New Hampshire Legislature, aims to bolster protections for individuals exercising their First Amendment rights by establishing a framework to combat Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). This legislative proposal, introduced on January 23, 2025, seeks to provide defendants with a special motion to dismiss lawsuits that infringe upon their freedom of speech or expression regarding matters of public concern.

The bill outlines several key provisions, including the establishment of qualified immunity for defendants in cases where their actions are rooted in First Amendment rights. This immunity can be invoked at any time during legal proceedings, although it may be waived if the defendant engages in substantial litigation before raising the immunity claim. Notably, the bill stipulates that plaintiffs must demonstrate a prima facie case to overcome this immunity, ensuring that only claims with sufficient merit can proceed.

Supporters of House Bill 391 argue that it is essential for protecting individuals from frivolous lawsuits that aim to silence dissent or discourage public discourse. They contend that such protections are vital in a democratic society, where open dialogue and criticism are fundamental. However, the bill has sparked debates regarding its potential implications for accountability and the balance between free speech and the right to seek redress for harm.

Opponents express concerns that the bill could shield individuals from legitimate claims, particularly in cases involving harassment or defamation. They argue that while protecting free speech is crucial, it should not come at the expense of individuals' rights to seek justice when harmed.

The economic implications of House Bill 391 could be significant, as it may deter potential lawsuits that could otherwise burden the court system and lead to costly legal battles. Additionally, the bill could influence the political landscape by empowering citizens to engage more freely in public discourse without fear of retribution through legal means.

As the legislative process unfolds, the future of House Bill 391 remains uncertain. It will likely face scrutiny and amendments as lawmakers weigh the importance of safeguarding free speech against the need for accountability. The outcome of this bill could set a precedent for how New Hampshire addresses the intersection of free expression and legal protections in the years to come.