This piece originally appeared in The Post and Courier on February 20, 2026.
Shutting down someone’s free speech with a meritless, costly lawsuit sounds downright un-American.
But in South Carolina, it’s a genuine risk because of the state’s lack of a law protecting citizens against such suits.
Take the Charleston Animal Society, for example. Publicly raising concerns about animal welfare triggered years of litigation for the group.
In 2017, the animal society publicized a video showing a carriage horse named Big John lying on the street, alleging mistreatment. Charleston Carriage Works responded not with a rebuttal, but with a lawsuit accusing the society of slander and business interference.
The case dragged on for years before a judge finally ruled in the animal society’s favor. Unfortunately, that came only after the society incurred significant legal expenses to defend its First Amendment-protected speech.
The lawsuit followed a familiar pattern. Specifically, it was a “SLAPP,” a strategic lawsuit against public participation. These suits aim to silence critics by forcing them to endure expensive litigation, regardless of the case’s merit. Without protections against SLAPPs, defendants can suffer financially and emotionally — even when they win. Moreover, the looming threat of SLAPPs chills other speakers into silence to avoid similar suits.
My organization, the Institute for Free Speech, tracks anti-SLAPP protections nationwide in our Anti-SLAPP Report Card. Measured against the rest of the country, South Carolina flunks.
Lacking any anti-SLAPP law, the Palmetto State earns a grade of “F” and zero out of 100 points. South Carolina is increasingly out-of-step with a significant positive national trend we’ve seen recently. Thirty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia, now afford their citizens protection against SLAPPs.
A record high of more than 80 percent of the American population now enjoys the benefits of an anti-SLAPP law, and 60 percent of Americans live in states where we assign some form of “A” or “B” grade. Nearby Tennessee and Georgia both earn “A” grades with impressive scores of 98 and 97, respectively, further highlighting South Carolina’s deficiencies.
Anti-SLAPP safeguards have broad, cross-ideological appeal, making South Carolina’s failure to pass such a law perplexing. Michigan just became the latest state to adopt a robust anti-SLAPP law, which passed unanimously. Ohio enacted its “A+” law in January of 2025, also without a single “nay” vote in either chamber. These examples are typical and reflect widespread support for protecting free speech—support that transcends political divides.
Indeed, South Carolina’s own anti-SLAPP bill, H.3305, the “South Carolina Public Expression Protection Act,” passed the House unanimously.
But that was last March. Since then, the bill has stalled in the Senate.
However, there is still some momentum for passage — and with good reason.
This bill is based on the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, a model law drafted by the nonpartisan Uniform Law Commission. UPEPA-based laws include crucial provisions to deter SLAPPs and minimize litigation costs for defendants. They require plaintiffs to show a legitimate claim early in the case. If not, the court must promptly dismiss the lawsuit.
Since judges sometimes err, the bill also grants defendants a right to an immediate appeal if the court denies an anti-SLAPP motion. Finally, the law would direct courts to construe its speech protections broadly and to award attorneys’ fees to successful defendants.
Passing this law would instantly elevate South Carolina from the dwindling ranks of states with no anti-SLAPP protections to among the nation’s most vigorous defenders against these dangerous lawsuits.
South Carolina should join the growing majority of states that protect speakers from these abusive lawsuits. Passing the South Carolina Public Expression Protection Act would give South Carolinians the speech protections they deserve.
