A publisher does not need to lose a lawsuit for the lawsuit to accomplish its purpose. Years of legal bills, missed deadlines and personal anxiety can punish a newsroom long before a judge reaches a verdict. For small publishers without in-house counsel or substantial financial reserves, even a defensible story can become an existential threat. According to international media-freedom attorney Flutura Kusari, waiting until that threat arrives to build a defense may already be too late.
Kusari is a senior legal advisor for the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, where she helps operate a legal-support program that has assisted hundreds of journalists. She is also a co-founder of the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe. SLAPPs, or strategic lawsuits against public participation, are legal actions intended to intimidate or silence journalists, activists and others engaged in matters of public interest.
The punishment begins before the verdict
Kusari said a SLAPP filed before publication may be intended to stop a story entirely. When legal action follows publication, its purpose may be even more punishing. “The purpose is to make the professional life and personal life of those reporting miserable,” she said, “to discourage them from doing what they’re supposed to do, which is journalism.”
The message is not limited to the journalist named in the complaint. A lawsuit also warns other reporters and publishers about what could happen if they investigate the same person, company or subject.
That chilling effect can deprive the public of essential information. Kusari said media organizations have removed reporting because of legal threats and lawsuits. Other stories may never be pursued because publishers decide that the potential financial consequences are simply too great. “Certain topics will not be reported, certain topics will not be discussed because of SLAPPs,” Kusari said. “The end result is that the public is prevented from being informed.”
Winning does not erase the damage
Many publishers assume that accurate reporting will protect them. But even when a journalist ultimately prevails, the cost of reaching that verdict can be devastating. “You always lost in the sense that you wasted time and money,” Kusari said. “Eventually, you ended up perhaps getting a verdict in your favor.”
Kusari has seen cases take as long as 10 years to resolve. By then, the defendant may have won in court but lost years of productivity, substantial legal fees and the confidence to continue pursuing aggressive reporting. The lawsuit can therefore succeed as an instrument of punishment regardless of the outcome. “Yes, it’s true that they win eventually, but the price they pay is very high,” she said. “It’s time and money and impact on others.”
Large news organizations may have in-house attorneys, regular legal training and pre-publication review. Small publishers rarely possess those advantages. They may receive a threatening letter and suddenly need to locate a qualified media attorney, understand an unfamiliar legal process and find the money to defend their reporting.
Kusari has seen journalists confronting short response deadlines while questioning whether they documented their work adequately. When a complaint demands substantial damages, panic can quickly set in. “They’re like, ‘Oh my God, I have to sell my house. Everything is gone,’” she said. Although the demand may be an empty threat, an unprepared journalist may have no way of knowing that when the complaint first arrives.
Preparation cannot wait for a legal threat
Kusari believes news organizations should prepare long before receiving a demand letter. Journalists working on complex investigations need to understand their legal rights and responsibilities. Publishers should also have relationships with qualified attorneys who can respond immediately. “With lawyers, it’s a relationship of trust,” Kusari said. “You cannot form this trust in a matter of one or two days.”
That preparation should include training, pre-publication risk assessment and a clear plan for mounting and financing a defense. It becomes particularly important when journalists change jobs, publications close or freelance contributors lack continuing access to a former employer’s counsel.
This is where Kusari sees the value of Reporters Shield. The membership program operates as insurance for investigative reporting organizations, helping eligible members obtain legal support when covered claims arise. Kusari said advance participation can make organizing a defense considerably easier and help journalists feel more secure. “If something happens to them, it’s much easier to organize a defense,” she said.
Membership also encourages publishers to consider legal risks before publication rather than after a lawsuit has been filed. Kusari emphasized that factual accuracy alone does not guarantee a successful defense. “It’s not enough just to say the truth,” she said. “You need to prove that you said the truth.”
A missing document, an unclear procedure or insufficient understanding of the law can make accurate reporting more difficult to defend. By preparing beforehand, journalists can learn how to mitigate legal risks, identify qualified counsel and understand how defense expenses will be addressed.
Protection preserves consequential reporting
The greatest value of legal protection may be the confidence it gives a newsroom to continue investigating powerful interests. A publisher who knows that counsel and financial support are available can evaluate a difficult story based on its journalistic merit rather than the fear that one lawsuit could destroy the organization. “If you are a member of Reporters Shield, or if you are in collaboration with other organizations providing such support, you get training,” Kusari said. “You know the legal risks and how to mitigate them. You get help identifying a lawyer, and then you have the costs covered.”
No publisher expects to become the target of an abusive lawsuit. That uncertainty is precisely why preparation matters. The worst time to learn about legal exposure, search for trusted counsel and calculate the cost of a defense is after a threatening letter has arrived.
A newsroom may ultimately prove that its reporting was accurate and responsible. But without protection already in place, winning the case may still come too late to save the journalism.
About Reporters Shield:
Reporters Shield is an independent, nonprofit membership organization that defends investigative and public-interest journalism from legal threats designed to silence critical reporting. Serving print, digital, and nonprofit newsrooms globally, the organization provides legal support and resources to help journalists publish with confidence. It was developed by investigative journalists and media lawyers, with support from leading legal institutions and funders committed to defending press freedom.
For more information, contact info@reporters-shield.org.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here