Throw out lawsuits meant to silence critics early, and spare the people sued from paying the costs
Steps to make it happen
- Reporters and residents speak out with opinions or facts about companies or powerful people.
- The side that wants them to stop sometimes files a lawsuit demanding a huge amount of money.
- At the start of the case, the person who is sued can say that the lawsuit is meant to shut them up.
- The court checks early on whether the lawsuit has enough substance to have a chance of winning.
- If it has no substance, the case ends right there and does not drag on for years.
- In that case, the side that sued pays the legal fees of the person who was sued.
- Anyone who files the same kind of lawsuit again and again faces an even heavier penalty.
- People who are sued can use a free help desk to get advice.
- Speaking about society's problems without fear becomes the normal thing to do.
Water so far 💧 3
The proposal in detail
This proposal covers civil lawsuits that are brought because of speech, news reports, research findings, or protests about matters that concern society as a whole, such as environmental pollution, public health, wrongdoing by governments or companies, and harm to consumers. It does not matter whether the lawsuit is called defamation, invasion of privacy, or interference with business. Early in the case, the person who is sued can state that the suit is based on expression about a matter of public concern. If the court finds that the claim is likely to be accepted, the burden shifts, and the side that sued must show early on that it has a reasonable chance of winning. In the meantime, procedures such as demanding large amounts of documents from the other side are in principle paused, and the court decides within a set period. If no such chance is shown, the lawsuit is thrown out, and the side that sued pays the reasonable legal fees of the person who was sued. When it is found that the aim is to silence someone, for example when the same person is sued over and over, an extra fine can also be imposed. A system is also put in place so that a country does not enforce foreign court judgments that fail to meet these standards. On the other hand, speech that stirs up violence, threats, plain product advertising, and speech that merely exposes a person's private life are not covered. A lawsuit that shows a chance of winning is heard as usual, and the right of people who have truly had their reputations damaged to go to court remains. A fund is also created to pay for legal advice and costs for individuals and small news organizations that are sued.
BenefitsPeople can keep speaking about society's problems despite the gap in power
The biggest benefit is that even when the suit comes from someone with far more money and organizational power, a lawsuit with no substance can be ended in a short time. Because the side that sued may have to pay the costs, filing a lawsuit just to silence someone no longer pays off, and the number of such lawsuits is expected to fall. As a result, small news organizations, local residents, young researchers, and others can more easily share information that matters to society, such as suspected pollution, wrongdoing, or harm to health, without being frightened into silence. This kind of information helps people find the mistakes of governments and companies sooner, and in the end it also protects many people's lives and daily lives. In addition, lawsuits that had no real chance of succeeding and would otherwise have dragged on for years can be sorted out early, so the burden on the courts becomes lighter and time can be given to cases that truly need a hearing. Combined with the system of not enforcing foreign judgments, this also discourages choosing a favorable country to sue in, and it can be a starting point for bringing the level of protection for expression into line around the world.
DrawbacksPeople who are truly harmed may hesitate to go to court
The strongest concern raised by those who oppose this is that the right to go to court is itself a basic right, and this could narrow it. People or small companies who have been deeply hurt by baseless slander or false information may be afraid that if they lose they will have to pay the other side's costs too, and so they may be unable to bring a rightful claim. In particular, when most of the evidence is in the hands of the person who spoke, it is hard to show an early chance of winning while document requests are on hold, and there is a danger that a claim that should have won is thrown out at the door. It is also said that the line between what counts as a matter of public concern is vague, and that by claiming public interest even vicious slander, harassment, and deliberate disinformation could be protected. On the other hand, the side that is sued might abuse the request as a tool to drag out the process. Because much of the decision is left to the judge's discretion, some also point out that how it works will vary from country to country and court to court, making outcomes harder to predict.
Learn the background
Around the world, reporters, citizen groups, researchers, and local residents are increasingly being sued for large amounts of money by companies, powerful people, and sometimes people connected to public institutions. Most of these lawsuits end with the side that sued losing, but it is pointed out that winning is not the goal. The goal is to make the other side spend years of time and a great deal of money on lawyers, and to make them stop speaking. Not only the person sued but also people who watch it think they might be sued too, so they stay quiet, and the whole society becomes weaker at talking about its problems. Now that the spread of the internet has made everyone a possible speaker, individuals with no organization behind them have become easier targets. There are also cases where people deliberately choose to sue in a court of a country with strict laws on expression, so measures that cross borders are needed. Some countries and regions are starting to create systems to fight back, but how strong the protection is differs greatly from place to place, and in many courts long procedures still go on just as in an ordinary dispute.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes