EDITORIALS & LETTERS: VERO >> SLAPPed

February 11, 2001

Some no doubt saw a Treasure Coast publicity gimmick staged last week by four defendants in a defamation lawsuit as a bit hokey. But the situation that the four dramatized - by transporting subpoenaed documents in a police-escorted Ryder truck - is serious.

The defendants are residents of St. Lucie County who have strong objections to construction of a toll bridge over the Indian River at Walton Road. So vociferous were they in opposition to the bridge project, and to the company that planned it, Figg Bridge Engineers, that Figg slapped them with a lawsuit for slander, libel and conspiracy to defame.

We use the verb "slapped" deliberately, as it also is the acronym for legal actions of this sort - Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. During the 1990s, companies chafing under citizen criticisms of public-works projects in which they were involved used SLAPPs to punish critics and discourage further opposition to their projects.

The courts generally don’t allow other participants in public decisions, especially public officials, to recover damages for defamation. But in Florida, the rule doesn’t apply to private entities involved in public projects.

It should. The power to sue for defamation amounts to the power to stifle debate. Stifling debate - even ugly debate - is always wrong.

What did the four St. Lucie County residents - Ed McKay, Kevin Stinnette, Charles Grande and Roger Sharp - do to precipitate the lawsuit? Plenty.

Early last year, in public meetings and letters to the editor, they said that the company has been named in an investigation of the illegal dumping of debris in Pensacola Bay in connection with a bridge project there. The company said it had been named as a witness in the case but that it was not a target of the investigation - a distinction of some importance.

Were the Walton Road project not a matter of public concern, the four well might deserve the misery that the Figg lawsuit has visited upon them. Since the filing of the suit in September, the four have racked up huge legal fees. Last week’s stunt - meant to evoke memories of the transport of disputed ballots to Tallahassee in last fall’s post-election debacle - involved the transport of thousands of documents that Figg subpoenaed from the four as part of the lawsuit-discovery process.

But the bridge project is a matter of intense public interest. In such matters, participants such as the four defendants deserve broad latitude to comment - including the right to exaggerate and to be wrong.

How could outlandish statements regarding public issues have any value? Because they invite everyone with an interest in an issue - such as whether building another bridge over the Indian River is a good idea - to consider possible impacts more deeply.

In the case at hand, the four were among many residents worried that the Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie County political establishments were rushing the bridge project through without sufficiently thorough consideration of its possible effects on property values and on the ecology of the Indian River.

Figg, obviously, does not appreciate the importance of unfettered public debate. Company officials not only sued but also hinged a subsequent settlement offer on an apology and retraction from the defendants, according to attorneys involved in the case. The defendants refused to apologize on the ground that they have done nothing wrong.

They’re right. They haven’t.

If the good folks at Figg plan to be involved in projects that that affect the public interest, they need to develop thicker skin. Unfair and inaccurate criticisms on controversial projects come with the territory.

Figg should stop trying to force the defendants to apologize and drop the lawsuit. Whatever reputational injury the may company have suffered as a result of the inaccurate public comments made by the four is minuscule in comparison to how the company will look if this case gets to trial and garners media coverage: like a bully SLAPPing gnats that have no real bite.