In conversation with noslapp.de’s legal experts: Prof Dr. Roger Mann

Attorney Prof. Dr. Roger Mann. Photo: Damm & Mann Attorneys at Law

Blueprint for Free Speech is one of several partner organizations to run the “No SLAPP Contact point for the protection of publicistic work in Germany” (www.noslappp.de). This project is supported by some of Germany’s most renowned and experienced legal experts pn our advisory board, in order to keep the training courses and other services offered by the contact point at the highest professional level. We aim to provide the best possible legal advice for specific SLAPPs, in cases with press and expression law, employment law and criminal law dimensions. 

In this series of interviews, we introduce the advisory board members individually, firstly with Prof. Dr. Roger Mann from Hamburg. Roger Mann, a specialist lawyer for copyright and media law, is a founding member of the law firm DAMM & MANN and an honorary professor at the Georg August University of Göttingen, where he teaches press law at the Faculty of Law. He is co-editor of the specialist journal "Archiv für Presserecht" (AfP) and the book Himmelsbach/Mann: "Presserecht". He has been invited as an expert on press law issues by the Council of Europe and the Legal Affairs Committee of the German Bundestag, among others.

How do you relate to the topic of SLAPP - which forms of intimidation through legal means do you deal with particularly intensively?  

As media lawyers, we are repeatedly confronted with attempts to deter journalists and NGOs from critical reporting at the research stage by threatening them with high claims for damages. Where this does not succeed, attempts are sometimes made to spread a climate of fear through corresponding lawsuits.

What is your advice for those affected by legal intimidation attempts?  

Not to be intimidated! In their case law, the German Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights repeatedly emphasize the role of the media as a "public watchdog" and the constitutive role of a free press for a democratic society. Those who observe journalistic due diligence generally have nothing to fear.   

In the EU directive “on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings”, SLAPP was officially defined for the first time in Europe. (To what extent) is this formulation already influencing your work, even before it is transposed into national law?  

In Germany, the phenomenon of SLAPP lawsuits is still largely not perceived as such. Many courts are also of the opinion that the usual instruments for resolving such cases are sufficient. However, this ignores the fact that the financial pressure and organizational burden of such proceedings is so great that it can lead to existential problems for those directly affected and to self-restricting tendencies for observers. That is precisely the purpose. I would therefore like to see greater awareness of the problem. 

What should legislators in Germany pay particular attention to when implementing the law?   

Above all, it is important to have regulations that are manageable in practice and take into account the interests of all parties involved. It helps if you can fall back on existing regulations on which there is already case law that can be used in practice. When identifying manifestly unfounded proceedings, it makes sense to borrow from the definition of "wilful" legal action in legal aid law.

What public understanding of SLAPP do you propose until implementation - which cases should be understood as SLAPP, which perhaps not? What do you think is the most important thing the public should know about SLAPPs?  

Not every Anglicism brings clarity, especially not as an acronym. I prefer the term "Einschüchterungsklage" (intimidation lawsuit) because it better describes the phenomenon in German. I also want to warn against reflexively defaming every lawsuit filed by a large company against attacks in public as a SLAPP suit. The law does not automatically assign roles to "good" or "bad" and, unfortunately, there is also irresponsible journalism that threatens freedom of opinion and freedom of the press in its own way. However, this does not change the fact that the public must be made aware of the phenomenon of intimidation lawsuits and, if necessary, unorthodox financing options should be discussed, e.g. through private foundations, which smaller organizations can turn to in such situations to finance their lawsuits. 

How do you think legal intimidation attempts can be defended against particularly well? When defending your clients against SLAPPs, what things do you need in your toolbox?

As I said, anyone who researches carefully and reports responsibly on this basis will certainly still need nerves of steel when intimidation attempts are made - but no wonder. We are incredibly happy to work with journalists who have documented their research well and, if we have additional questions about the facts, are just as sharp in their follow-up research as they were before publication.