When people speak publicly to criticize persons or businesses, the persons or businesses criticized sometimes respond by filing a lawsuit for defamation, libel, disparagement, or another tort (wrongful act). These lawsuits are often directly or indirectly intended to intimidate and silence critics—and to discourage others from making critical statements—by punishing the speaker with the cost and burden of defending a lawsuit. These retaliatory and speech-chilling lawsuits are known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

To combat SLAPP lawsuits, many state legislatures have enacted laws (statutes) designed to protect citizens who petition their government or speak on matters of public concern from retaliatory lawsuits that seek to intimidate or silence them. The statutory protection consists of a special motion for expedited consideration of any suit that appears to stifle the defendant’s communication on a matter of public concern.

The purpose of these anti-SLAPP laws is to identify and quickly dispose of lawsuits that seek to chill the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association—not to dismiss legitimate lawsuits with merit. To accomplish its purpose, anti-SLAPP statutes usually include an expedited process in which the judge must review the pleadings—the plaintiff’s complaint or petition and the defendant’s answer—and a limited amount of evidence within a short time after the lawsuit is filed, and determine whether the lawsuit should be dismissed.

Anti-SLAPP statutes vary from state to state, but often include provisions that allow or require a defendant who successfully moves for the dismissal of a SLAPP lawsuit to recover attorney fees, costs of court, and expenses from the plaintiff.

As of the knowledge cutoff date in 2023, Kansas does not have a specific anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. Unlike some other states that have enacted laws to protect individuals from SLAPP lawsuits, Kansas relies on general principles of defamation law and the First Amendment to address these issues. In the absence of a specific anti-SLAPP law, defendants in Kansas who are sued for defamation, libel, disparagement, or similar torts because of their speech on matters of public concern must defend themselves using traditional legal defenses. These defenses may include proving the truth of the statement, asserting the statement was an opinion, or demonstrating that the statement was made without actual malice. While the lack of an anti-SLAPP statute means there is no expedited process for dismissing such lawsuits in Kansas, defendants may still seek to have meritless claims dismissed through standard procedural mechanisms. If a defendant prevails, they may potentially recover attorney fees and costs, but this is not guaranteed as it would be under a specific anti-SLAPP statute.