The legal advisory board of the No SLAPP contact point in conversation: Chan-jo Jun

Attorney Chan-jo Jun. Photo: Jun Rechtsanwälte

In the context of our project “No SLAPP contact point for Germany”, we are supported by some of Germany’s most renowned and experienced legal experts in order to keep the training courses and other services offered by the contact point at the highest professional level. And 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 of our German anti-SLAPP project individually. We start with Chan-jo Jun from Würzburg. He became known for his legal work against hate crime on Facebook, with which he initiated investigations against Mark Zuckerberg and other Facebook managers and took Facebook to court. He specializes in media and online law as well as (media) criminal law.

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

Chan-jo Jun: We are frequently involved in proceedings involving "matters of public interest", whether as lawyers or repeatedly as defendants. Not every lawsuit involving the right to make statements is immediately a case of abuse, but we see very clearly that in many lawsuits the actual aim of the lawsuit is not the main focus, but rather the indirect effect of harassment and sanctioning. This has worked very well so far. I have witnessed how publishers and authorities have come to the conclusion after a lawsuit campaign that it is better not to criticize a particular attacker any more, even if the lawsuits have been won in full or by a majority. These are often material battles where the one with the deeper pockets prevails rather than the one who is in the right. 

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

Don't expect any slogans from me. If you are targeted by financially strong SLAPP attackers, you can only defend yourself if you have the financial means and are prepared to use them. In addition, the defendant also needs the nerves and time for the lawsuits. Of course, you can appeal to pride and perseverance, but with serious advice, the right solution is often deletion, submission and saving funds. That is, after all, the reason why legislators must act quickly now.

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?   

We started using SLAPP in court proceedings two years ago when the SLAPP Directive was first drafted. At that time, there were no formulated criteria as to when abuse actually occurred and the courts simply ignored the arguments. The acronym SLAPP is also difficult for German judges to grasp. We hope that with the current definition, courts will make use of the options already available.

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

Implementation will be a difficult task for legislators in the ministerial ivory tower. Of the experts who could report on the phenomenon from a practical perspective, the majority are themselves profiteers from the SLAPP business model and naturally have no interest in making litigation campaigns more difficult. Over-ambitious measures, on the other hand, restrict the protection of victims too much. The directive has left open the questions of precise consideration and delegated them to national legislators. I hope that the German legislator will take the opportunity to regulate cases without an international dimension. 

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

I would follow the definitions in the directive, but leave out the cross-border restriction. This only exists for jurisdictional reasons. In terms of communication, we will have major problems with the fact that the necessary shortening of the concept will give rise to criticism. Prohibiting an opponent from making statements is not abusive from the outset. In the case of obviously unfounded claims, the abuse is obvious, but it becomes difficult in cases of abuse of partially justified claims. Here, the plaintiff must not be completely denied legal protection, but summary proceedings are particularly suitable for a careful shift in the balance.

In your opinion, how can attempts at legal intimidation be warded off particularly well? When defending your clients against SLAPPs, what things do you need in your toolbox?

Since the attackers are concerned with public perception, public opinion is precisely the target for a defense strategy. However, this only fuels the argument, so a counter-attack is only an option if you have the resources to see the battle through. If you don't have that, you have to hope for legislation.