5 ms·

> They have threatened her with $50,000 in punitive damages every time she mentions Facebook in public … even if the statements she is making are true,” he said

> They have threatened her with $50,000 in punitive damages every time she mentions Facebook in public … even if the statements she is making are true,” he said. Unless Congress asks for the testimony, which is probably why Meta tried to stop the hearing.

Alive-in-2025 1y ago
But infinitely rich companies can of course bankrupt any ordinary human by suing them over and over again. They already look bad, so it doesn't make them look worse. Why wouldn't they just keep suing her?
- leereeves 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
  - gruez 1y ago
    Is that's what's happening here? The bit about suing her "even if the statements she is making are true" makes me think they're not trying to sue her via defamation, but through non-disparagement agreements. If that's the case, I'd hesitate to characterize this as SLAPP. If you voluntarily entered into a non-disparagement agreement and got something in exchange (eg. in exchange for severance or whatever), then at the very least it's slightly different than a journalist or whatever trying to expose some scandal.
    - ben_w 1y ago
      For such reasons, I count non-disparagement agreements as a curtailing of free speech. Everything that makes freedom of speech worth defending when the government wants your silence, also applies to businesses. The US puts freedom of speech on a pedestal. But stuff like this makes me aware that's a lot more limited than people would like to believe. (I've signed at least two non-disparagement agreements, but also I'm not in the US).
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > infinitely rich companies can of course bankrupt any ordinary human by suing them over and over again No. Not only does SLAPP prevent that, a rich, unpopular company trying to silence a whistleblower through tort is running a PR campaign for their legal defence fund. More realistic: being blacklisted from employment.
  - ProllyInfamous 1y ago
    >No ... SLAPP prevent[s] that. Yes and no. I have successfully defended myself from a SLAPP lawsuit. I have also been arrested. To quote the arresting officer of the unrelated (and questionable) arrest: "You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!" Defending yourself with an anti-SLAPP mechanism is expensive, time-consuming, and (even with an attorney) both parties can be made to look foolish. In my own SLAPP lawsuit, I represented myself (so no attorney fees). I don't recommend others pick fights with megacorporations.

Alive-in-2025 1y ago

But infinitely rich companies can of course bankrupt any ordinary human by suing them over and over again. They already look bad, so it doesn't make them look worse. Why wouldn't they just keep suing her?

leereeves 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
- gruez 1y ago
  Is that's what's happening here? The bit about suing her "even if the statements she is making are true" makes me think they're not trying to sue her via defamation, but through non-disparagement agreements. If that's the case, I'd hesitate to characterize this as SLAPP. If you voluntarily entered into a non-disparagement agreement and got something in exchange (eg. in exchange for severance or whatever), then at the very least it's slightly different than a journalist or whatever trying to expose some scandal.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    For such reasons, I count non-disparagement agreements as a curtailing of free speech. Everything that makes freedom of speech worth defending when the government wants your silence, also applies to businesses. The US puts freedom of speech on a pedestal. But stuff like this makes me aware that's a lot more limited than people would like to believe. (I've signed at least two non-disparagement agreements, but also I'm not in the US).
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> infinitely rich companies can of course bankrupt any ordinary human by suing them over and over again No. Not only does SLAPP prevent that, a rich, unpopular company trying to silence a whistleblower through tort is running a PR campaign for their legal defence fund. More realistic: being blacklisted from employment.
- ProllyInfamous 1y ago
  >No ... SLAPP prevent[s] that. Yes and no. I have successfully defended myself from a SLAPP lawsuit. I have also been arrested. To quote the arresting officer of the unrelated (and questionable) arrest: "You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!" Defending yourself with an anti-SLAPP mechanism is expensive, time-consuming, and (even with an attorney) both parties can be made to look foolish. In my own SLAPP lawsuit, I represented myself (so no attorney fees). I don't recommend others pick fights with megacorporations.