From Colleen McGuire:
Keep in mind that I haven’t practiced law in a number of years and never encountered a SLAPP suit, yet and still, I find the defendants’ usage of a SLAPP defense to be so, sorry to be cliched, but Orwellian. These were suits that the little guy brought against corporate behemoths who could outgun them, as this definition indicates:
A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
Who the heck is censored and intimidated here? That’s the defendant’s intention and game plan for YOU. Who the heck is burdened here? Together the defendants have far more cumulative wealth than little ole you. With all the backing of a powerful university behind them, the defendants have no impetus or need to abandon their criticism or opposition to you.
Their SLAPP claim is just so ass-backwards. Frankly, in my opinion it is an insult to use it as a sword when it was intended as a shield to all the brave litigants who have stood up to powerful plutocrats, one of whom YOU ain’t! But perhaps the law around SLAPP claims has morphed into something else??
From Victoria Ward:
I plan to study your enclosure. I glanced over it. Lockdown Sceptics had a good article from a philosopher on why one already is at a disadvantage in these arguments –
https://lockdownsceptics.org/the-covid-differend/ An excerpt:
The French philosopher, Jean-François Lyotard, describes a radical kind of divide in outlook and opinion, which does not consist in disagreement about something but in the absence of any shared ground on which to establish disagreement. This divide is not merely a difference, then, but what Lyotard calls a “differend”. When there is a differend between people, there are no terms on which any differences between them can be meaningfully identified, discussed, compromised on, resolved. Any attempt to engage in debate works in favour of one of the parties (the one whose terms of debate are used to frame the encounter) and so profoundly against the other party that they are of necessity stripped of the means even of representing their position, let alone of having it prevail.
I certainly think an honest judge would be on your side.
From a colleague (untenured) at NYU (notably, the only one who has reached out to me since this ordeal began):
Oh my god! “provably true statements and their opinion”.
Do they think they can win that way?
They just said: “subjective and subjective”
I am so so sorry you have to go through this.