Letters to the Editor | Sept. 27, 2023

The rich shouldn’t be able to weaponize frivolous litigation to stifle speech — and Pennsylvania lawmakers have an opportunity to ensure they can’t. House Bill 1466, if passed, would become what’s known as the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. It would deter meritless lawsuits that aim to silence or punish speakers, usually using a baseless defamation claim. Such lawsuits are known as SLAPPs, which stands for strategic lawsuits against public participation. Anti-SLAPP laws provide defenses to these lawsuits. Without such protections, the costs and stress created by SLAPPs can be devastating. Even worse, the mere threat of litigation can chill speech, discouraging individuals from speaking for fear of financial ruin.

HB 1466 strengthens the commonwealth’s anti-SLAPP protections, which are woefully inadequate. Pennsylvania received a D- grade last year in the Institute for Free Speech’s 50-state anti-SLAPP report because its law covers only speech about environmental rules. HB 1466 cures that defect by expanding protection to all expression on any matter of public concern. The bill also contains critical provisions that deter SLAPPs and minimize litigation costs for defendants. These improvements would protect Pennsylvanians from frivolous, speech-suppressing lawsuits.

Just a few weeks ago, neighboring New Jersey became the 33rd state to pass an anti-SLAPP law, and it’s one of the nation’s best. The unanimous, bipartisan support for that bill speaks to the broad appeal of anti-SLAPP laws, and the vital mission of safeguarding everyone’s right to free speech. Pennsylvania lawmakers should follow the example set by New Jersey, New York, and other states by protecting all speech on public policies. Pennsylvanians deserve to speak freely without fear of reprisals by wealthy plaintiffs who, without such protections, could suppress speech they dislike.

David Keating, president, Institute for Free Speech

After reading the letters to the editor about the Senate’s dress code change and the latest on New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez and his wife’s corruption charges, I concluded that there is a solution to the dress code issue for some of our current (and former) elected officials: orange jumpsuits.

Edgars Nilenders, Rockledge

Donald Trump speaking to United Auto Workers union members reminds me of a proverb: “The forest kept disappearing, as the trees would vote for the ax. See the ax was clever, he convinced the trees that since his handle was made of wood, he was one of them.” Trump was the most anti-union president since Ronald Reagan. Union members should remember when the Trump administration charged that postal union members violated the Hatch Act, the rollback of worker safety rules, his stance against equal pay, and unfavorable rulings from the National Labor Relations Board and the U.S. Supreme Court (not to mention tax breaks for the rich). Union members, please do your homework. Read Trump’s 2016 Republican platform and see if he supported unions then. Did Trump support union members in Atlantic City, and would he be there if the polls didn’t show that most Americans support the UAW?

Clayton Smith, Glenside, claydog610@comcast.net

For decades, people throughout the world envied America. A land in which we the people elected representatives to a government whose goal was the betterment of all. This philosophy helped us grow from a new, struggling nation to a place of world prominence. But today, our nation has changed and lost its way. The “we” has become “us” and “them.” The goals of one’s political party supersede all else. Elected representatives work for the party and themselves. They are specifically told not to work with members of the other party to solve problems. The looming government shutdown is a prime example of this.

Look at countries where biological ethnicity or religious denomination means more than the nation or places where tribal affiliation is the dominant identification factor for a person, not the country in which they live. Would you like to live in such a place? Are we the people going to stand by and watch or aid a party as it fights for political power? There is a ballot box, and we have a vote. We can demand and insist that the people we elect to represent us do just that — represent all the people and the country, not just a specific party. Can we get to a day where candidates on a ballot don’t need to list a party affiliation?

Jim McGogney, Marlton, hiprofessor@gmail.com

Every so often, amid violence and other negative forces that might dominate, along comes some really good news, as featured in The Inquirer story on Ric and Jean Edelman. Both are alumni of Glassboro State College (now Rowan University) who have achieved enormous success in the financial world. Somewhere along the path of their life journey, they not only learned the true meaning of the word philanthropy — the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes — but they lived it. They recently donated $10 million to Rowan for students who are strong academic performers and come from lower-income families. If only this genuine expression of compassionate care became contagious. Imagine how much despair could be erased by hope. Kudos to The Inquirer for highlighting this story.

Peggy Devlin, Marlton

There’s a concentrated push to institute term limits for our elected members of Congress. While on the surface this appears to be quite sanguine and well-intentioned, it has many drawbacks. The most impactful complicating factor? If a six- or 12-year term were established, who would pursue that kind of limited career? Would it be the already wealthy, or perhaps those who would try to reap the quickest financial gain by colluding with lobbyists and other wealthy benefactors? Shortsightedness might manifest itself in many congressional initiatives and proposals. Also, investigative practices of committees and subcommittees might be persuaded, and perhaps controlled, by ominous forces offering huge subsequent payoffs to former members of Congress.

The ills of an elected official making a lifetime out of his or her tenure can be detrimental to the noble legislative activities intended by our Founding Fathers. However, the potential for greater harm by self-serving temporary officeholders is more likely. The only remedy to both sides of this length of tenure issue is an informed, educated, and enlightened citizenry that votes in each election cycle — and installs or rebukes, perpetuates or denies, electoral success to certain political aspirants. An informed and responsive media (with varying perspectives) can have a contributory effect in pursuit of greater transparency, too.

Ron Smith, Brigantine, ronaldjsmithsr@comcast.net

I commend Solomon Jones for dealing with his own drug addiction, but his column on the recent City Council legislation banning safe injection sites fails to offer any answers. Instead, it harks back to Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign. Without a viable solution, we are tempted to fall back on the failed war on drugs and mass incarceration movement. We have seen that locking up the poor and people of color does little to abate drug use. A more realistic solution appears just a few pages before Jones’ column in Sunday’s Opinion section, in Max Marin’s excellent analysis of Berlin’s Görlitzer Park.

Marin begins by recognizing that drug use is a public health issue, which we previously accepted before the war on drugs. Europe has done an excellent job of managing drug use and not compromising public safety or enjoyment of open spaces like the park in Berlin. Controlling the drug markets and offering support services for those in addiction such as safe injection sites, needle exchanges, and drug testing can coexist with quality-of-life measures. The Netherlands offers registered addicts the drug of choice at public health centers. Gone are the drug encampments of Kensington, corners full of people struggling with addiction, and unhoused people living on our streets. Let’s focus on solutions and not another round of NIMBYism.

Angus Love, Narberth, anguslove76@gmail.com

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.