SLAPPS and Social Activism: The Wonderland v. Grey2K Case Jason Edward Black University of Maryland' The early morning hours of November 8, 2000 marked the unsuccessful end of a two-year campaign to ban greyhound racing in Massachusetts. The referendum movement was led by Greyhound Racing Ends Year 2000 (Grey2K) and was opposed by the racetrack corporation Wonderland Park (Eidinger 1). After the campaign advertisements ceased, the votes were tallied and the political smoke had cleared, it turned out that Grey2K's initiative. Question 3, failed by less than 2% of the voting population - a narrow margin for a referendum (Eidinger 2). What remains vital for academic study is not the loss itself, but how Wonderland Park was able to silence Grey2K. Though marred by a host of legal issues, accusations of defamation, and finger pointing, Grey2K's grassroots campaign failed - not on its merits or due to its legal ills - but by a strategy employed to chill the free speech of ordinary citizens participating in activities for social change. Wonderland Park used the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) to stifle Grey2K's voice from a communicative and public relations standpoint, though not through legal standing. In fact, Grey2K fought successfully for dismissal of the SLAPP, but by the time the court turned its attention to the motion to dismiss, the publicity of the SLAPP charges had already left a mark on the campaign to end the plight of racing greyhounds; most significantly, the 2000 election was over. The SLAPP arose with the advent of increased public activism during the 1960s and gained academic attention in the late 1980s when legal scholars George Pring and Penelope Canan began combating this genre of cases designed to limit the public's right to free speech (see Beder). According to Pring and Canan, SLAPPs remain one of the most vicious and devious ways that governmental agencies and corporations squelch the individual or social movement voice. They write, "A new breed of lawsuits is stalking America. Like some new strain of vims, these court cases carry dire consequences for individuals, communities, and the body politic. Americans by the thousands are being sued, simply for exercising one of our most cherished rights: the right to communicate our views to our government officials, to 'speak out' on public issues" (Pring and Canan 23). The implications of this litigious strategy are disastrous for individual expression and the public's right to involve itself in civic affairs and political change. Mark Jackson concurs, noting "these suits are aimed not at rectifying truly defamatory statements made by defendants, but rather, at intimidating them from voicing their public concerns. Moreover, corporations use SLAPPs to discourage involvement not only by the named defendants, but also by their neighbors and the remaining community" (Jackson 493). ' The author wishes to thank John Llewellyn, Michael J. Hyde, Charles Howard, and Paul Gates for their assistance in revising this piece. Special thanks are also due Susan Drucker and two anonymous reviewers. The current article was presented at the Southern States Communication Association conference in Winston-Salem, NC, April 2002. 70