SLAPP Suit Video Playlist and Resources. Educate on Anti-Slapp Law and the Hypocrites that Defend it then Bring "SLAPP" suits to SUPPRESS Free SPEECH.

"A malicious or frivolous lawsuit that chills speech is the SLAPP" 

Research Links Regarding Anti-Slapp Law

"A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims.

SLAPPs take various forms but the most common is a civil suit for defamation, which in the English common law tradition is a tort. The common law of libel dates to the early 17th century and (unusual in English law) is reverse onus, meaning, once someone alleges a statement is libelous, the burden is on the defendant to prove that it is not. Various abusive uses of this law including political libel (criticism of the political actions or views of others) have ceased to exist in most places, but persist in some jurisdictions (notably British Columbia and Ontario) where political views can be held as defamatory. A common feature of SLAPP suits is forum shopping, wherein plaintiffs find courts that are more favourable towards the claims to be brought than the court in which the defendant (or sometimes plaintiffs) live."

Source and Full Article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Research Links Regarding Anti-Slapp Law

http://www.casp.net/california-anti-slapp-first-amendment-law-resources/statutes/

http://www.casp.net/sued-for-freedom-of-speech-california/is-my-defamation-libel-slander-internet-speech-lawsuit-a-slapp/

http://www.thefirstamendment.org/antislappresourcecenter.html

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-california

"Say you sue me for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED" — or, as I call it, "BIFD," for "Butthurt In the First Degree.") In a state without an anti-SLAPP statute, my options are quite limited. I could file a motion to dismiss — called a demurrer in California and some other jurisdictions. You might call that a "so what if I did?" motion — a motion to dismiss asks the court to determine whether, if all specific facts alleged in the complaint is true, the allegations are enough to entitle the plaintiff to relief under the law. Sometimes this suffices to get rid of a defamation case. For instance, if you sue me and say "Ken said on his mean blog that my writing suggests a recent head injury for which I have not sought medical attention, and that defamed me," then I might be able to get the case dismissed, because that's clearly a statement of constitutionally protected opinion."

Source ( Note it's On a Hypocritical Co-Conspirator Blog)
http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/07/why-yes-i-am-into-slapping/

The Case for a Federal Anti-SLAPP Statute

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/case-federal-anti-slapp-statute

http://www.newsroomlawblog.com/2009/01/articles/antislapp-statutes/a-brief-overview-of-antislapp-statutes/

http://www.anti-slapp.org/