{"title":"RICO抨击:企业惩罚社会激进主义","authors":"Robert Sprague","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Since mid-twentieth century, courts and state legislatures have recognized that legitimate petitioning and free speech activities should not be subject to civil litigation. Laws meant to regulate or proscribe one form of activity should not be abused to curb First Amendment activities. Over the past thirty years a number of states have enacted legislation to protect individuals and organizations active in social and environmental causes, as well as local development issues, from groundless lawsuits, known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), brought to silence them. But these anti-SLAPP statutes are of little use to an organization that must spend years in litigation fighting accusations that its protected activities constitute criminal predicate acts under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). This article advocates a federal statute that can protect individuals and organizations that speak out from meritless lawsuits grounded in federal law—particularly RICO. As discussed in this article, there are procedural and constitutional challenges to such a law. However, those obstacles can and must be overcome to prevent a law aimed at criminal racketeering from being used to stifle First Amendment rights.</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"55 4","pages":"763-808"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ablj.12133","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"SLAPPed by RICO: Corporations Punishing Social Activism\",\"authors\":\"Robert Sprague\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ablj.12133\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Since mid-twentieth century, courts and state legislatures have recognized that legitimate petitioning and free speech activities should not be subject to civil litigation. Laws meant to regulate or proscribe one form of activity should not be abused to curb First Amendment activities. Over the past thirty years a number of states have enacted legislation to protect individuals and organizations active in social and environmental causes, as well as local development issues, from groundless lawsuits, known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), brought to silence them. But these anti-SLAPP statutes are of little use to an organization that must spend years in litigation fighting accusations that its protected activities constitute criminal predicate acts under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). This article advocates a federal statute that can protect individuals and organizations that speak out from meritless lawsuits grounded in federal law—particularly RICO. As discussed in this article, there are procedural and constitutional challenges to such a law. However, those obstacles can and must be overcome to prevent a law aimed at criminal racketeering from being used to stifle First Amendment rights.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Business Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"55 4\",\"pages\":\"763-808\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ablj.12133\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Business Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12133\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12133","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
SLAPPed by RICO: Corporations Punishing Social Activism
Since mid-twentieth century, courts and state legislatures have recognized that legitimate petitioning and free speech activities should not be subject to civil litigation. Laws meant to regulate or proscribe one form of activity should not be abused to curb First Amendment activities. Over the past thirty years a number of states have enacted legislation to protect individuals and organizations active in social and environmental causes, as well as local development issues, from groundless lawsuits, known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), brought to silence them. But these anti-SLAPP statutes are of little use to an organization that must spend years in litigation fighting accusations that its protected activities constitute criminal predicate acts under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). This article advocates a federal statute that can protect individuals and organizations that speak out from meritless lawsuits grounded in federal law—particularly RICO. As discussed in this article, there are procedural and constitutional challenges to such a law. However, those obstacles can and must be overcome to prevent a law aimed at criminal racketeering from being used to stifle First Amendment rights.
期刊介绍:
The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.