The government last year transposed a European Union directive that was aimed at preventing cross-border Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, also known as SLAPP lawsuits.

These are abusive lawsuits that are aimed at intimidating and harassing the target into silence, with journalists around the world being victims of such tactics.

When referring to SLAPP suits, we do not mean a genuine lawsuit. "Anti-SLAPP legislation does not for a second alter the substance of defamation law. It doesn't alter the substance of copyright law or any other sort of claim that could be brought against someone engaging in public participation. What it does do, is enable courts to dismiss unmeritorious and abusive claims at an early stage. No journalist who is defaming another person would be protected by legislation which is designed to protect meritorious claims which are brought without abuse. If anyone is concerned that a journalist would be at liberty to defame anyone, the response to that is that if a claim has any merit and is brought in a manner which is not abusive, then that claim will be seen through in the usual way. With anti-SLAPP law, unmeritorious claims will be dismissed early which would also lift some of the burden off the courts," anti-SLAPP expert Justin Borg-Barthet told The Malta Independent on Sunday during an interview.

SLAPP suits are cases which, for instance, are instituted or threatened to be instituted with the aim of silencing a journalist. An example of this, which has been faced by Maltese media, is the threat of lawsuits being filed in the USA or other foreign jurisdictions, where the mere high costs associated with contesting the claim would financially cripple the media.

Another example of a SLAPP suit could be the filing on multiple lawsuits over a single issue for instance, but there are many others.

The repercussions of SLAPP suits would be to cause fear in journalists in order to dissuade them from reporting on an issue. Not only, but these suits could also cause a wider chilling effect.

Borg-Barthet, who is a professor of law at the University of Aberdeen, and the founder of the university's Anti-SLAPP Research Hub, had been involved in discussions in the lead-up to the EU's Anti-SLAPP directive, aimed at tackling cross-border SLAPP cases, even having helped develop a model EU law that had been used as a basis for the discussions for the EU directive.

"The scope of the EU instrument is slightly constrained, in that it only takes in cross-border cases, although that definition of cross-border cases is quite broad," he told this newsroom.

He described the EU directive as a minimum harmonisation instrument. "This means that member states are required to adopt the minimum standards, and are at liberty to adopt higher standards than that minimum," he said. "The Maltese implementation is a minimum implementation. Insofar as the EU legislation is a significant improvement on the absence of legislation, then the Maltese legislation equally is a sound contribution to the legal landscape of freedom of expression in Malta." However, Borg-Barthet said, "it was a very rushed process. There was no consultation on the specific draft and there was no attempt to go beyond the bare minimum".

This statement, that only the minimum was done, has been highlighted by various groups on the matter, who have been calling for legislation to be improved upon.

The government had shot down a proposal by the PN to strengthen anti-SLAPP legislation, a move that was criticised by the Institute of Maltese Journalists.

The government's rejection of the amendments painted a picture of the government's lack of interest in offering better protection to journalists.

But it is in everyone's interests for anti-SLAPP legislation to be further strengthened, as SLAPP suits are only brought forward by those who have something to hide.

It is good that the EU governments adopted legislation to combat cross-border SLAPPs, and they are commended for it, but purely domestic SLAPPs also need to be tackled and legislation to reflect that must be enacted locally. It is an important issue that must be tackled to strengthen the protection of freedom of speech.