A lawsuit called as SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit which is against public participation), is proposed to censor, silence and intimidate critics to pay legal defense cost, until they discard their opposition or criticism.

The lawsuit known as SLAAP is one of the most dangerous and least known threats to free speech. It is used by the advocates of the free speech to describe merit less lawsuits whose intention was to silence the critics. Normally, SLAPP targets citizens rather than media.

SLAPP plaintiff does not intend to win that lawsuit always, but their goals are achieved if the defendant surrenders to intimidation, fear, simple exhaustion, mounting legal costs and abandons the criticism. It may intimidate from the debate participation. SLAPP is often accompanied by legal threat. The drawback that plaintiff has is that they are not presented to the court admitting that their intent is just to censor.

Any statute that applies to express any speech or writing made in the connection of the issue or a legislative review by the judicial or executive proceeding. This may also imply for a public speech or a forum on any issue for the public interest.

To win oven an anti SLAPP motion, the defendant should show that the lawsuit activity is constitutionally protected. There are no anti SLAPP federal laws but the extent to which the state law applied in federal court is uncertain. The lack of SLAPP’s uniform protection encouraged proponents of federal legislation that have been uncertain about any levels’ protection. Law in the constitution has provided protection recovery bars against the amendment defense except upon convincing and clear evidences.