ABD Hukukunda Kamusal Tartışmaya Karşı Stratejik Dava (SLAPP) Yasağı

Yıl 2022, , 563 - 588, 30.04.2022

İsmail Yüksel

https://doi.org/10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1076923

Öz

Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde 1970’li yıllardan itibaren, bireylerin kamu makamlarına başvurmasını ya da kamusal tartışmaya katılmasını engellemek amacıyla çeşitli dayanaklarla tazminat davaları açılmaya başlanmıştır. Bu davalar “Kamusal Tartışmaya Karşı Stratejik Dava” olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Bu dava türünde davacı kaybedeceğini bildiği bir dava ile ifadelerini ya da başvurusunu engellemek istediği davalıyı sindirmeyi ve caydırmayı hedeflemektedir. Günümüzde dünyanın neredeyse tamamına yayılmış olan bu dava türü, internetin de etkisiyle genellikle büyük ekonomik güce sahip şirketler ile bireyleri karşı karşıya getirmektedir. Büyük tazminat talepleri yargılama sonunda reddedilse bile ülkede ifade hürriyetinin azalmasına, bireylerin kamusal tartışmalara katılmaktan caydırılmasına neden olmaktadır. ABD’de başlarda Noerr-Pennington ve NYT v. Sullivan içtihatları ile mücadele edilen bu davalara karşı 1990’lı yıllardan itibaren eyalet hukuklarında önlemler alınmaya başlanmıştır. Halen ABD’de federal düzeyde bir düzenleme ise yapılmamıştır. Eyalet kanunları genellikle davanın maddi yükünü davacının üstünde bırakacak ve yargılama sürecini kısaltarak manevi yükünü azaltacak yöntemler kabul etmişlerdir. Eyalet düzenlemelerinin ilklerinden birisi olan Kaliforniya Usul Kanunu’nun 425.16 maddesi her tür ifadeyi korumaktadır. Kamusal Tartışmaya Karşı Stratejik Davalara karşı alınacak önlemlerin de kötüye kullanılması mümkündür ve tedbirlerin adil yargılanma hakkıyla dengelenmesi gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İfade Hürriyeti, Caydırma Etkisi, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, Tazminat, Medeni Usul Hukuku, Kaliforniya

Anti-SLAPP Law in USA

Öz

Around 1970’s a novel type of lawsuit started to appear in the United States of America to suppress participation of individuals in public discourse. Dubbed as “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” or SLAPP, these lawsuits appear mostly disguised as a civil law damages claim. By using a SLAPP, plaintiff aims to subdue and chill the defendant from petitioning the authorities or voicing her opposition. This lawsuit spread globally and brought individuals face to face with multi-million dollar companies. Although doomed from the start immense damages claimed in these suits diminish freedom of expression and chills participation in public discourse. Initially Noerr-Pennington and NYT v. Sullivan case law was employed as a defense against-SLAPPs and around the 1990s states began to adopt anti-SLAPP legislation. There is still not an anti-SLAPP legislation at the federal level. State legislations generally adopts procedural safeguards by which the defendant can recover expanses and allows expedited dismissal of a SLAPP. California anti-SLAPP protection, which is one of the first, provides very wide protection. Anti-SLAPP legislation can also be abused and for this reason a fair balance between free trial rights and freedom expression must be created.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Freedom of Expression, Chilling Effect, United States of America, Damages, Civil Procedure, California

Kaynakça

• <https://anti-slapp.org/your-states-free-speech-protection#reference-chart>. (Erişim Tarihi: 2021 Şubat 25)
• Abrams R, ‘Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPP)’ (1989) 7 Pace Enviromental Law Review 33-44
• Barylak CH, ‘Reducing Uncertainty in Anti-SLAPP Protection’ (2010) 71 Ohio State Law Journal 845-882
• Benson JA and Merriam DH, ‘Identifying and Beating a Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation’ (1993) 45 Land Use Law & Zoning Digest 17-36
• Bergelson L, ‘The Need for a Federal Anti-SLAPP Law in Today’s Digital Media Climate’ (2019) 42 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 213-240
• Braun JI, ‘California’s Anti-SLAPP Remedy After Eleven Years’ (2003) 34 McGeorge Law Review 731-784
• Brazill MA, ‘A Curious Motion: The Uncertain Role of Anti-SLAPP Statutes in Federal Courts’ (2016) 2016 Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository 1-28
• Bunker MD and Erickson E, ‘#Aıntturnıngtheothercheek: Usıng Antı-Slapp Law As A Defense In Socıal Medıa’ (2019) 87 UMKC Law Review 801-816
• Canan P, ‘The SLAPP from a Sociological Perspective’ (1989) 7 Pace Enviromental Law Review 23-32
• Canan P and Pring G, ‘Strategic Lawsuits Against Prublic Participation’ (1988) 35 Social Problems 506-519
• Costantini E and Nash MP, ‘SLAPP/SLAPPback: The Misuse of Libel Law for Political Purposes and a Countersuit Response’ (1991) 7 Journal of Law & Politics 417-480
• Donson F, Legal Intimidation (1st edn, Association Books 2000)
• Furman JR, ‘Cybersmear or Cyber-SLAPP: Analyzing Defamation Suits Against Online John Does as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation’ (2001) 25 Seattle University Law Review 213-254
• Glover A and Jimison M, ‘S.L.A.P.P. Suits: A First Amendment Issue and Beyond’ (1995) 21 North Carolina Central Law Journal 122-143
• Golden N, ‘Slapp Down: The Use (And Abuse) Of Antı-Slapp Motıons To Strıke’ (2015) 12 Rutgers Journal of Law and Public Policy 426-462
• Hartzler S, ‘Protecting Informed Public Participation: Anti-Slapp Law and the Media Defendant’ (2007) 41 Valparaiso University Law Review 1235-1284
• Leader AR, ‘A “Slapp” In The Face Of Free Speech: Protectıng Survıvors’ Rıghts To Speak Up In The “Me Too” Era’ (2019) 17 First Amendment Law Review 441-476
• McBride EWJ, ‘The Empire State Slapps Back: New York’s Legislative Response to SLAPP Suits1992.Pdf’ 17 Vermont Law Review 925-958
• Peeters NP, ‘Don’t Raise That Hand: Why, under Georgia’s Anti-Slapp Statute, Whistleblowers Should Find Protection from Reprisals for Reporting Employer Misconduct’ (2004) 38 Georgia Law Review 769-812
• Prather L and Bland J, ‘Bullıes Beware: Safeguardıng Constıtutıonal Rıghts Through Antı- Slapp In Texas’ (2015) 47 Texas Tech Law Review 725-802
• Richards RD, ‘A Slapp in the Facebook: Assessing the Impact of Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation on Social Networks, Blogs and Consumer Gripe Sites’ (2011) 21 DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law 221-256
• Richardson DM, ‘Power Play: An Examınatıon Of Texas’s Antı-Slapp Statute And Its Protectıon Of Free Speech Through’ (2014) 45 St. Mary’s Law Journal 245-282
• Roth AL, ‘Upping the Ante: Rethinking Anti-SLAPP Laws in the Age of the Internet’ (2016) 2016 Brigham Young University Law Review 741-[viii]
• Saner KE, ‘Getting Slapp-Ed in Federal Court: Applying State Anti-Slapp Special Motions to Dismiss in Federal Court after Shady Grove’ (2013) 63 Duke Law Journal 781-822
• Seager SE, ‘Donald J. Trump Is A Libel Bully But Also A Libel Loser’ 1-15
• Shapiro P, ‘SLAPPs: Intent or Content? Anti-SLAPP Legislation Goes International: ANTI-SLAPP LEGISLATION GOES INTERNATIONAL’ (2010) 19 Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 14-27
• Smith A, ‘SLAPP Fight’ (2016) 68 Alabama Law Review 303-[]viii
• Stein RM, ‘SLAPP Suits: A Slap at the First Amendment’ (1989) 7 Pace Environmental Law Review 45-60
• Stetson M, ‘Reformıng Slapp Reform: New York’s Antı-Slapp Statute’ (1995) 70 New York University Law Review 1324-1361
• Tate KW, ‘Calıfornıa’s Antı-Slapp Legıslatıon: A Summary Of And Commentary On Its Operatıon And Scope’ (2000) 33 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 801-886
• Thorton DC, ‘Evaluating Anti-SLAPP Protection in the Federal Arena: An Incomplete Paradigm of Conflict’ (2016) 27 George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal 119-144
• Trende SP, ‘Defamation, Anti-SLAPP Legislation, and the Blogosphere: New Solutions for an Old Problem’ (2006) 44 Duquesne Law Review 607-648
• Waldman TA, ‘Slapp Suits: Weaknesses in First Amendment Law and in the Courts’ Responses to Frivolous Litigatio’ (1992) 39 UCLA Law Review 979-1054
• Wells JA, ‘Exporting SLAPPs: International Use of the U.S. SLAPP to Suppress Dissent and Critical Speech’ (1998) 12 Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 457-502
• Wyrwich T, ‘A Cure For A “Publıc Concern”: Washıngton’s New Antı-Slapp Law’ (2011) 86 Washington Law Review 663-694