Techrights Will Spend the Next Few Years Writing a Lot About Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)
It's a growing problem
Last summer we sued someone who had repeatedly SLAPPed us since 2021 [1, 2], having also harassed and defamed us for much longer than this. There's a limit to how much abuse a person can take for merely reporting facts, especially regarding Microsoft's war on all computer users. Violent allusions and misconduct on our network could not be tolerated. We don't tolerate harassment and serious crimes. We never did.
Projection tactics (I was first to call him out on his "Libel, Defamation and Slander") aren't new. As the police told us last year (we reported many crimes to the cops since 2023), those who sue or report first aren't the victims, or aren't necessarily so. If some person from Microsoft stabs another person (true story), it does matter if the stabber phones the cops first. You cannot hide the sequence of events or what really happened. After more than 13 years of tolerating abuse I can freely talk about it.
It's the same when it comes to SLAPPs. If anyone had merits and grounds to sue, it was me, even a decade ago.
Criminals are not victims; they are criminals. If Microsoft pays them salaries to help subsidise SLAPPs, then too they're still criminals. Salaries aren't metrics of integrity.
The Microsofters basically became overzealous and went too far. Their attack dogs ought to calm down and rethink whether what they wish to do "for a living" is work for some violent American from Microsoft to let him attack women and then also attack reporters whose output is sincere and is served from another continent (Europe).
This seems like a familiar pattern. Hence we intend to write a lot more about it in years to come.
There's already ample documentation of similar cases, including some information from two months ago (regulators failing to do their job):
At the first SDT trial, held in December 2024, Ashley Hurst, Head of Client Strategy at Osborne Clarke LLP, was found guilty of improperly stifling public scrutiny in relation to correspondence he sent to tax lawyer Dan Neidle when acting for ex-minister Nadhim Zahawi. Hurst’s breach of the SRA’s Code of Conduct and Principles resulted in a fine of £50,000, plus the requirement to cover the SRA’s legal costs. However, the SDT concluded that the case was not a SLAPP because “there was no attempt to prevent scrutiny of Mr Zahawi’s tax affairs per se.”
Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates said:
“Zahawi knew the central accusation – that he’d failed to pay £4m in tax – was true, and tried to use the legal system to silence me. That is the definition of a SLAPP. It’s hard to understand why the SRA prosecuted it on such narrow grounds.”
Dr Helen Taylor, senior legal researcher at coalition member, Spotlight on Corruption who has been closely monitoring SLAPP-related SDT hearings said:
“The SRA’s case was very narrowly formulated to address only the concerns about the labelling of correspondence, which missed the opportunity to engage with Neidle’s more fundamental allegation that the firm had been complicit in misleading him about Zahawi’s tax affairs and threatened a defamation claim in order to prevent scrutiny of those tax affairs”
The co-chairs of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition said:
“This assertion came with no explanation as to how the SDT was characterising a SLAPP and highlights again the urgent need for a universal anti-SLAPP law, which would provide clarity across all sectors for the identification of SLAPPs.”
On Tuesday 28 January 2025, Lloyd Hatton MP raised a question to the Government regarding the SRA’s decision in Eliot Higgins’ case. It can be watched here.
The above involves some of the law firms we saw firsthand and sometimes had to talk back to.
I have "strong" views about this.
Only a sociopathic lawyer/paralegal can sleep well at night while engaging in such despicable activities in daytime. One might be troubled to imagine what a man thinks if fronting for such "causes"; does he seek to also justify strangling his own partners? If so, can a licence to exercise law be entrusted or immediately revoked? Violence against women is never acceptable. No matter the circumstance. Stop trying to justify it. It's not my fault that people who assault women cannot find a job; it's not my job to find them a job, so stop misplacing blame and listen to victims, not narcissists who pay you to bully.
As noted a week ago, I stopped talking back to them. They are just desperate and it sounds like we got what we aimed for (but I am not good at guessing/assessing this). The more they lose, the louder and more aggressive they become. No wonder I received bullying letters from their lawyers almost every single day this past week (I ignored them and it's a matter of principle).
The explanation made here last week was simple: at this point there's no fruitful discourse, it's just akin to "persona non grata" communication-wise; if you speak back to bullies in spite of their patronising tone, then you let them feel like they get their way and they will try to have "a swing" or "another bite". The simpler solution is to let courts decide, owing to specialists in the field who work full-time in that area, not some hobbyists who wrangle words and cite some vague cases as if they memorised entire bookshelves and cannot be challenged without you spending lots of hours studying old and likely irrelevant cases (maybe even made up, maybe by chatbots).
The main upside of the SLAPPs (as noted last night) is that they help us become more familiar with the process. Later we can write about and properly explain this process. We can help teach others (or so we hope) how to squash SLAPPs.
We've long advocated free press and free speech. So the mission has not changed. █