This piece originally appeared in the Greenville News on April 17, 2025.
In 2017, the Charleston Animal Society (CAS) shared a video of a carriage horse named Big John lying on a downtown street to highlight what it alleged was mistreatment.
For the “sin” of speaking out on a matter of public concern, Charleston Carriage Works sued CAS for alleged slander and business interference. It took four long years before a judge finally ruled in CAS’s favor, but not before the organization endured massive legal costs defending its constitutionally protected speech.
What happened to the CAS is a classic example of a “SLAPP,” a strategic lawsuit against public participation. These suits are designed to intimidate and silence critics through the burden of costly legal defense, regardless of the case’s merit. Even when defendants eventually win, they suffer financially and emotionally, and other would-be speakers are “chilled” into silence to avoid becoming targets.
SLAPPs typically take the form of meritless defamation lawsuits that unscrupulous plaintiffs deploy to silence speech they don’t like, which could consist of anything from criticism of an elected official to a negative online restaurant review. Without strong anti-SLAPP laws, even speakers who win in court can suffer through years of costly litigation.
Analyzing SLAPP protections is a priority for the Institute for Free Speech. We examine anti-SLAPP laws in all 50 states and D.C., detailing the results in our Anti-SLAPP Report Card.
And the results for South Carolina are alarming.
Lacking any anti-SLAPP law, the Palmetto state earns a grade of “F” and the worst-possible score of zero out of 100 points. South Carolina’s “F” stands in sharp contrast to a significant positive national trend in recent years. Only 14 states — including South Carolina — afford their citizens no protection against SLAPPs.
By contrast, a record high of over 60% of the American population now enjoys the benefits of a “good” anti-SLAPP law, meaning some form of “A” or “B” grade. South Carolina’s poor performance is also at odds with neighboring Georgia and nearby Tennessee, both of which earn “A” grades with impressive scores of 98 and 97, respectively.
Given this safeguard’s broad, cross-ideological appeal, South Carolina’s failure to pass such a law is particularly puzzling. Idaho just became the latest state to adopt a robust anti-SLAPP law, doing so with nearly unanimous support. Ohio enacted its “A+” law in January without a single “nay” vote in either chamber. This widespread support shows that protecting free speech transcends political divides.
There’s good news, though. H 3305, the “South Carolina Public Expression Protection Act,” recently passed out of committee in the South Carolina House and is currently making its way through the legislative process.
This bill is based on the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), a model law drafted by the nonpartisan Uniform Law Commission. UPEPA-based laws include crucial provisions to deter SLAPPs and minimize litigation costs for defendants. They require plaintiffs to show a legitimate claim early in the case. If not, the court must promptly dismiss the lawsuit. Since judges sometimes err, the bill also gives defendants a right to an immediate appeal if the court denies an anti-SLAPP motion. Finally, it instructs judges to broadly interpret the law’s speech protections and award victorious defendants attorney fees.
Passing this law would instantly elevate South Carolina from the bottom of the rankings to among the nation’s most vigorous defenders against SLAPPs.
It’s time for South Carolina to join the growing majority of states that have recognized the importance of such laws. Passing the South Carolina Public Expression Protection Act would give South Carolinians the speech protections they deserve.
