The Cost of Speaking Out: Why South Carolina Needs Anti-SLAPP Laws

Have you ever felt the need to speak out against a powerful entity— such as a large corporation, government regulatory agency, or public figure— only to worry about getting sued for it? 

In South Carolina, that is a very legitimate concern. The Palmetto State lacks basic protections against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs, which are lawsuits filed not to win in court, but to silence criticism by subjecting citizens expressing their First Amendment rights to costly legal battles. 

For example: in March 2022, Lexingtonian Kevin Scully found himself sued for speaking out against the actions of Ken Loveless, who was the Lexington-Richland School District 5 school board’s vice chairman. 

SLAPP lawsuits are often filed under claims like defamation, libel, or interference with business. But the real goal isn’t to win — it’s to intimidate. The message is clear: speak out, and you’ll pay the price in court. However, in many cases, the financial price will be substantial before the citizen sees the inside of a courtroom. Even citizens with valid claims or concerns go silent when faced with the threat of years of litigation and skyrocketing attorney fees. 

Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to stop this abuse. They give judges the power to dismiss meritless lawsuits early in the process, before defendants rack up thousands in legal costs, and often allow for reimbursement of attorney fees. More importantly, they protect the constitutional right to free speech, especially when someone is speaking out on a matter of public interest. 

In March 2024, the South Carolina General Assembly made an attempt to pass anti-SLAPP protections with H.4274,  which was introduced in the 2023–24 legislative session by Reps. Weston Newton (R-Beaufort), Bill Herbkersman (R-Beaufort), Shannon Erickson (R-Beaufort), Jeff Bradley (R-Beaufort) and Bill Hager (R-Hampton). 

This bill was known as the SC Public Expression Protection Act, and it passed the House of Representatives unanimously. However, the bill stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee and never became law before the 2023-24 legislative session ended. 

What was H.4274? 

• Purpose: Protect individuals and organizations from Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), which are used to intimidate or silence critics by burdening them with costly litigation. 
• Scope: Applies to lawsuits based on a person’s exercise of constitutional rights — including free speech, freedom of the press, right to petition, and right of association. 
• Key Provisions: Allows defendants to file a special motion to dismiss SLAPP lawsuits within 60 days of service. 
• Shifts burden to the plaintiff to show a valid legal claim — otherwise, the case is dismissed. 
• Judges could eliminate lawsuits designed solely to intimidate, and defendants could recover attorney’s fees.  
• Pauses discovery and other court proceedings until the motion to dismiss is resolved. 
• If a lawsuit is found to be frivolous or primarily intended to silence lawful speech, the court must award attorney fees and costs to the defendant. 
• Model: Based on Uniform Law Commission’s model anti-SLAPP law, adopted in several other states. 
• Political Support: Bipartisan backing; Passed unanimously in the House (118–0) in March 2024.   
• Status: Died After Being Stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee and was not taken up before sine die adjournment in 2024 — meaning it died in that session. 

Without anti-SLAPP protections, South Carolinians remain vulnerable to being silenced by anyone with more money and legal resources. As 35 other states move forward with protections, it’s time South Carolina caught up. 

There is still hope that a bill will pass.  

On January 14, 2025, the SC Public Expression Protection Act was reintroduced as H.3305. It passed the House 112-0 and was read across the desk in the Senate on March 26, 2025. 

What are the differences between H.4274 and H.3305? 

Official Title: Both bills are captioned the South Carolina Public Expression Protection Act. 

H.3305 incorporates clearer legal standards and additional protections based on the national Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA). Some differences include: 

• Improved Legal Language: H.3305 uses updated wording drawn directly from UPEPA, offering more precise definitions of protected speech and public participation. 
• Stronger Judicial Standards: Courts are now required to interpret free speech protections broadly, in line with both UPEPA and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. 
• Immediate Right to Appeal: H.3305 explicitly grants defendants the right to immediately appeal if a motion to dismiss is wrongly denied — a critical safeguard not clearly included in H.4274. 
• Consistency with National Best Practices: By aligning with UPEPA, H.3305 ensures South Carolina’s law reflects the strongest anti-SLAPP protections used in other states. 
• Renewed Legislative Momentum: Unlike H.4274, which died in the Senate Judiciary Committee, H.3305 has already passed the House and remains active for the 2025–26 session — keeping hope alive for passage before the May 2026 sine die deadline. 

Concerns about the bill 

When H.3305 advanced to the full Senate Judiciary Committee in April 2025, several senators raised questions about the scope of the bill. Concerns were expressed regarding how the legislation might apply in cases involving public officials or large organizations, and whether it could make it more difficult for individuals to bring forward legitimate claims such as defamation or harassment. While no amendments were adopted at that stage, the discussion reflected a broader interest in clarifying how the bill would function in practice and ensuring it would not unintentionally limit access to legal recourse. 

In that committee, Rep. Weston Newton said that the bill is a slight reworking of what was passed in the House last year. He said the bill was developed with individuals from Duke’s First Amendment Center, and that it’s on the basis of a uniform bill. 

“When we passed this last year in the House and it died in the Senate, at the same time we sent it over to the South Carolina Law initiative, which are the folks over at the law school that are in panel to help us look at uniform laws, and they’re looking at other uniform commercial code updates and other things,” Newton said. “They came back with a couple of recommendations for amendments, one of which we think can be included, the other which we can always go back and change at a later date. Those amendments essentially allow an interlocutory appeal for an order denying a motion to dismiss.” 

 Why These Differences Matter 

• Uniform Legal Standards: By aligning with UPEPA, H.3305 offers clearer, more effective rules for courts to apply anti-SLAPP protections.
• Enhanced Protection: The addition of immediate appeals strengthens defendants’ ability to quickly stop unreasonable lawsuits. 

The Bottom Line: Free speech shouldn’t depend on the ability of a citizen to afford a lawyer. In 2026, lawmakers have an opportunity to stand up for this principle by making the Public Expression Protection Act a priority. With the passage of anti-SLAPP, the silencing of The Smalls will be more difficult for The Bigs and everyday South Carolinians will be empowered to speak truth to power without fear of retribution and intimidation.