Protect journalists, pass anti-SLAPP law in the CNMI

By Mabel Doge Luhan

If you go around wearing a sign that says Kick Me, don’t you think someone will take you up on the offer?

Since ever since, the CNMI’s foreign workers have, for the most part, welcomed the abuse piled on them. “Delayed” paychecks? Sure! Forced to illegally pay CW-1 fees? Of course! Told to serve food to the same people trying to shut them out of this society? Yes sir! Told to print an announcement reminding everyone to discriminate against them? But of course!

So when the leader of the bullies — not the strongest, but the loudest, with perhaps the least to lose — sued Bryan Manabat for $100 million, on the grounds of “constitutional violations,” what else did you expect?

Maybe Manabat and his fellow “journalists” should not have been so eager to print every denouncement of them and their legal rights? Maybe they should have asked more questions when “interviewing” some local politician who told them that they’re not welcome here? Maybe they should have shown some backbone?

Instead, they just wear those signs that say Kick Me. I’m not victim-blaming, mind you, and being named in a specious lawsuit is no picnic even if the plaintiff has no chance of actually winning the case. Rising up against bullies is scary, especially when you’ve likely been taught to always obey authority. But this is the natural conclusion of condoning bullies and saying “yes sir” to everything.

That’s not just Manabat and not even just CWs. It’s also the businesses of all kinds who have paid settlements rather than teach a lesson to a vexatious litigant. Why not countersue? Ask the court to impose sanctions? Complain to the Bar about the plaintiff’s attorney, if there is one? If you just pay up and go away, you’re training the vexatious litigant to lather, rinse, repeat (dude could use a shower BTW) for more payoffs.

If you condone and appease bullies and bullying, you will get more of the same.

This type of legal bullying, specifically, is called SLAPP: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. It’s often used against journalists. The plaintiff doesn’t hope to win. They just hope to harass the defendant enough to scare them away, or to get a small settlement. Filing SLAPP is against legal ethics, and most attorneys will step away from anything that sounds like SLAPP (hence the lack of attorney in the recent filing). In fact, most US states, and Guam, have specific anti-SLAPP legislation, that allows a case to be immediately dismissed if it’s obviously a case of SLAPP. There is no such law in the CNMI, and if there was, it is unclear whether it would apply to the federal court. But instead of all the comically bad legislation our legislators are passing, why not do something useful to solve an actual problem, and pass an anti-SLAPP law? Copy the anti-SLAPP law in Guam or a US state, because I know you’re lazy— er, judicious in your use of resources. There’s even a model bill from the — cue laugh track — Society of Professional Journalists:

https://ij.org/legislation/anti-slapp-act/

And read more details about anti-SLAPP laws (including Guam’s) here:

https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/ANTISLAPP.pdf

For now, one can only hope that the Variety’s lawyer gets Manabat and Younis dropped from the case in their personal capacities. And from then on, one can only hope that the Variety’s lawyer, or some other lawyer, sues the miscreant right back, as well as asking the court to sanction them for filing specious lawsuits. Manabat would likely qualify for free legal counsel from Micronesian Legal Services.

And maybe Manabat, and the Variety, can learn some lessons:

1. If you wear a sign saying Kick Me, somebody will. All that anti-CW and anti-Filipino hate speech appears in your articles and comments, and you do nothing about it. The CNMI DOL tells you to print illegal announcements requiring discrimination against non-US-citizens (basically, Filipinos), and you happily do it without comment. This is where that leads.

2. The Variety has always played it fast and loose with facts, sources, and intellectual property. Unlikely because of a grand conspiracy, more likely just sheer laziness and a belief of there being no consequences. How many Variety articles print flat-out wrong information, or get people’s names or identities completely wrong? There’s never a retraction, correction, or apology. Up until a few years ago, how many Variety articles (and images) were plagiarized from other sources? Lots (sorry, I never counted, but it was many). The Variety is accustomed to just skating by without consequences. They never got any consequences for their “borrowed” branding and logo, right? Maybe this lawsuit, no matter how specious, will also be a warning: people do sue, so you’d better be very careful. And your usual strategy of “don’t criticize anyone powerful and we’ll be ok” may not always save you.

 

Say what you will about the quality of journalism in the Variety, but there is absolutely no grounds to sue. Even if the articles were politically motivated or biased, so what? Biased reporting is not legally actionable. Of course, a real vexatious litigant doesn’t care about the merits of the case. Harassment is enough for them.

That’s how bullies work. And you’re not much better if you’re enabling them.

_____

Mabel Doge Luhan is a woman of loose morals. She resides in Kagman V, where she pursues her passions of crocheting, beatboxing, and falconry.