Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Anti Slapp topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Anti‑SLAPP proposals draw competing bills and split testimony in Judiciary hearing
Summary
Members considered HB 391, an anti‑SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) bill; proponents argued it protects small critics from litigation abuse, while opponents warned it would create special privileges and tilt courts toward early fee awards for defendants invoking First Amendment‑based defenses.
The Judiciary Committee heard competing views on HB 391, a proposal to create procedures and remedies intended to deter strategic lawsuits against public participation — commonly called anti‑SLAPP proposals.
Representative Corcoran, the bill’s sponsor, framed the proposal as protection for smaller parties who face large lawsuits intended to intimidate and silence lawful speech or public participation. “When 1 side can afford to just use the courts to make another side give up, they can make it absolutely untenable for a small party,” Corcoran said, describing litigation used as a tool to shut down protests or reporting. Several proponents told the committee the state should adopt a clear statutory tool to weed out lawsuits that are primarily intended to chill speech rather than redress legitimate claims.
Opposition testimony came from civil‑litigation and defense groups that argued the bill’s text broadly elevates First Amendment defenses above other civil rights and would create a new entitlement to attorney fees and minimum damages when a defendant obtains an early dismissal on First Amendment grounds. Christopher Sufert, an attorney testifying for the New Hampshire Civil Bar, said the draft “seeks to elevate the First Amendment over all those others” and warned it would allow defendants to obtain awards even when a plaintiff’s claims have merit but require discovery to prove.
NH Civil Bar leadership said the proposal’s procedures and fee shifting could create unintended lawfare and strongly urged caution; civil defense interests and the bar association urged the committee to retain the status quo, or to pursue narrower, more targeted legislation. The speaker noted prior committee votes had deemed similar language inexpedient to legislate.
Representative Corcoran said he had hoped to merge his bill with a narrower anti‑SLAPP draft focusing on cases involving domestic violence survivors but that the narrower bill did not capture the full range of situations where litigation is used to intimidate critics. No committee vote was taken and members signaled a desire for narrower, more targeted language that reduces the risk of unintended privileges in civil litigation.
