Blockades against public participation

English is the language with the most versatile abbreviations and acronyms. Expressions like OMG (Oh My God!) and LOL ("Laughing out loud"," a mixture of laughter and astonishment, has found a place among young people, and not so young people, in digital conversations. Many phenomena named in the English-speaking world are called by those names, waiting to find a catchy equivalent in their own language. This is the case with SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Opposition), which aim to name the legal actions that seek to silence critical voices through costly processes. slap means slapThis is an ingenious representation of what these lawsuits entail: a slap in the face for those who challenge the powerful by exposing their shortcomings. Or rather, a good blow, because its main element is the economic gap between the plaintiff and the defendant.

This power imbalance is very obvious in the lawsuits brought by Russian oligarchs against those who dare to expose their shady dealings. Or in a current, highly symbolic case: the legal harassment by the oil company Energy Transfer against Greenpeace for supporting the Sioux community's protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, which Obama suspended and Trump resumed. What a coincidence that the company is one of the current president's main donors. The smear campaign, with unfounded accusations of terrorism, was followed by a demand for $660 million which, if granted, would force the NGO to close its doors in the US. Environmentalists have fought back, launching a counterattack in the Dutch courts, invoking the EU's new anti-SLAPP directive. Known as the Daphne Law, it is named after the Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, murdered for investigating corrupt connections between her country's government and Pilatus Bank, whose license was eventually revoked by the ECB. Among other underhanded tactics, Pilatus threatened independent media outlets with multimillion-euro lawsuits in third countries. The "jurisdiction on demand" principle allows the plaintiff to choose the most convenient jurisdiction and makes life impossible for the less fortunate defendant.

The European regulation aims to ensure that SLAPP judgments from outside the EU are not enforced and that abuse of the law does not go unpunished, with convictions including costs and effective sanctions. But above all, it guarantees early dismissal of cases. Ensuring that legal proceedings are not prolonged is essential to reducing the suffering of those persecuted and minimizing legal expenses when the process itself is the punishment. The economic, psychological, and reputational damage leads to individual self-censorship and collective demobilization that are difficult to overcome.

Although the European directive only includes civil and commercial litigation with cross-border implications (affecting more than one state), the Commission has made it clear that it needs to be extended to domestic trials and criminal cases. Despite the deadline for transposition ending in May, the most pressing issue is still unresolved. It looks like the Spanish state will face another sanction for non-compliance. And it's not as if the problem doesn't exist in our country. Pau Esparch, author ofreport From Mèdia.cat, the Critical Media Observatory, has collected a lot of cases: the one of Iberdrola against The Confidential, from whom the company was demanding 17 million euros to publish its relationship with Commissioner Villarejo; the one from the Barcelona Urban Property Chamber against Critical...to publish the names of major property owners; the case of the now-dissolved CREA group against ARA for reporting on sectarian practices that have ended up in the Public Prosecutor's Office; the case of engineer Gómez-Obregón for pointing out a lack of transparency in the Cantabrian government... Distilling the common elements, we find: the asymmetry of power (David versus Goliath); the economic disproportion (sums, often astronomical, are demanded, unrelated to the hypothetical damage); the type of events (information of public interest); and the ulterior motive (the aim is to deter, not to win). Those affected can be journalists, activists, whistleblowers, lawyers, human rights defenders, academics, scientists, artists... anyone who releases information that fuels public debate.

The Spanish case is unique because in most European democracies, criminal prosecution rests exclusively with the public prosecutor. The fact that political parties or pseudo-unions like Manos Limpias can pursue legal action opens the door to impunity for abuses. Furthermore, in most of the world, defamation is not typically prosecuted criminally, as it is in Spain with the crimes of slander and libel. The existence of anomalous offenses, such as insults against the Crown or offenses against religious sentiments, completes this unusual picture. The difficulty of reaching a consensus on reforming organic laws like the Penal Code in the current political climate sounds like an excuse, because amending the gag law is simpler and yet it remains in place. For over a decade, Spain has been whitewashing racially profiling raids—perhaps less virulent than Trump's ICE raids, but just as illegitimate—hashing fines on those who protest (against evictions, against genocide, etc.), complicating the documentation of police abuses, and restricting freedom of information.

In the current scenario, it is crucial to appeal, especially to the awareness of judges and the ethical standards of bar associations, as Europe demands. And to trust in the resilience of civil society, embodied today by the courageous members of Greenpeace, in their fight against civil death.They bark, then we ride"," says the quote attributed to QuixoteIt seems to be inaccurate. The same idea, more or less, is expressed in a cross-border proverb: "Dogs bark; caravans pass." Let's hope the muzzle changes sides.