Bill Overview
Title: Free Speech Protection Act
Description: This bill allows a natural person to bring a civil action against a person or entity that files a defamation claim against that natural person if (1) a court determines that liability is precluded for such defamation claim; and (2) the defamation claim is shown to be filed for the purpose of harassment, intimidation, or otherwise suppressing certain speech related to a matter of legitimate public concern.
Sponsors: Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]
Target Audience
Population: People engaged in public discourse potentially targeted by defamation suits
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill is designed to protect individuals who are sued for defamation when such suits are illegitimate and are intended to suppress free speech.
- This bill would most directly impact individuals who publicly engage in speech related to matters of public concern, which could include journalists, whistleblowers, activists, and potentially any citizen expressing opinions or facts of public interest.
- Individuals who have been subject to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) would particularly benefit, as they are often the targets of frivolous or retaliatory lawsuits meant to silence them.
- The broader population could also feel an indirect impact as the bill strengthens protections for free speech, potentially leading to a more open discourse in society.
Reasoning
- The Free Speech Protection Act largely targets those who are engaged in discourse that might attract defamation suits rooted in harassment or suppression, such as journalists, activists, and whistleblowers. Thus, individuals from these groups represent the primary beneficiaries of the policy.
- Given the budgetary limitations, the implementation of this policy requires strategic prioritization of lawsuits that are most clear-cut cases of harassment in public discourse contexts. This ensures efficient use of resources and maximizes the impact for those within the target audience.
- The policy's impact on a broader level would likely increase society's acceptance of diverse opinions and encourage an open dialogue, albeit indirectly. The effects on public discourse might become more pronounced over time as protections strengthen and awareness grows.
- Average U.S. citizens might not see a direct impact unless they are specifically engaged in activities that put them at risk of such defamation suits, which aligns with our assessment of low impact for those not directly engaged in public discourse.
Simulated Interviews
journalist (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a journalist, I've experienced the chilling effect of legal threats. This policy might help me and others feel more secure when reporting on sensitive topics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
activist (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill is a shield against frivolous lawsuits aimed at silencing me and my fellow activists. It's a game-changer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
retired (Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being retired, I write for a community blog. Knowing I have protection means I can voice my opinions without constant worry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
law student (Washington)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a future lawyer specializing in free speech, this policy helps secure the foundational principles I want to protect in my career.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
freelancer (Illinois)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been a target of defamation suits because of my work's nature. This policy could prevent years of harassment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
college student (Massachusetts)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The prospect of legal costs due to free speech is terrifying. This bill helps protect student voices like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
business owner (Florida)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I often face backlash for my views. Knowing I'm protected motivates me to maintain my openness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
teacher (Ohio)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I might not be directly impacted, the policy could help me teach students the importance of free expression without fear.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
corporate attorney (New Jersey)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will likely affect litigation processes, potentially reducing frivolous suits I deal with.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
nurse (Arizona)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I don't foresee getting targeted, the policy indirectly benefits our community by encouraging open discussions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $11000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $13000000)
Year 5: $13000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $16000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $19000000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring that the judiciary can manage potential increases in claims without strain on existing resources.
- Balancing free speech protection with the right to legitimate defamation claims.
- Monitoring the long-term societal impacts on the quality of public discourse.