Anti-SLAPP protection

South Carolina does not have an anti-SLAPP law.

Helpful cases

South Carolina has never had an anti-SLAPP law, nor has any state court explicitly cited SLAPP-related concerns in a decision. These cases, however, might be helpful to publishers facing a SLAPP in state:

Stokes v. Oconee County (2023)

David Stokes previously oversaw the Building Department’s staff for Oconee County in his role as “building official.” At a 2017 meeting for the County Council’s Budget, Finance and Administration Committee, two council members brought up complaints regarding the department. Two days later, Stokes was advised “he would be terminated unless he chose to resign.” After he was fired, Stokes filed a grievance, to which the County’s Grievance Committee recommended that the county provide evidence or fully reinstate him. Despite the committee’s recommendation, the termination was upheld. Stokes sued the county and the two council members for slander per se and wrongful termination. In response, the county and one of the council members filed counterclaims for abuse of process and “frivolous lawsuit.” The other council member filed counterclaims for defamation and “frivolous lawsuit.” The circuit court granted all three parties summary judgment on Stoke’s slander claim. It denied summary judgment to the counterclaim for abuse of process and the county’s summary judgment for Stoke’s wrongful termination claim. The court later issued an order that stated Stokes had not sued the council members in their “individual capacities” and that there was no evidence they had “acted outside of their official capacities as council members and they were absolutely privileged to make the statements in question in the course of their legislative functions.” Thus, the council members were entitled to immunity under the Tort Claims Act. They also wrote that Stokes did not provide evidence of actual malice, and that if he had, a statute relieved a “government entity from liability for loss resulting from employee conduct constituting actual malice.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Citing New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court of Appeals found the alleged defamatory statements “did not reference Stokes’s name and did not communicate any false message about him as an individual. Nor could these statements, by themselves, be reasonably interpreted to have any ‘special personal application to Stokes.’” The court further concluded Stokes did not establish the statements in question “communicated false messages about Stokes as an individual.”

Walpole v. Jones Street Publishers (2019)

Bud Walpole was the head coach of a high school football team. In 2014, Walpole was fired after the school conducted an investigation into an allegedly racist post-game ritual that the football team participated in. An editor for Charleston City Paper (owned by Jones Street Publishers) wrote an opinion piece. Walpole was reinstated later that year, only shortly before the superintendent resigned. In response, City Paper published a second opinion piece. That same year, six football players and Walpole sued multiple defendants for defamation; Jones Street Publishers, named as one of the defendants, moved for summary judgment. In its argument, the newspaper claimed the facts in the article came from a press conference held by the school district and were therefore protected by fair report privilege. The remaining content, including references to the players as “racist douchebags,” were protected opinion. The circuit court granted the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.

Gravelle v. Roberts (2008)

The case stems from a “buyers beware” letter that Jim Webb posted on a website for locksmiths after he purchased an allegedly faulty machine manufactured by Gordon Gravelle. Gravelle sued both Webb and Jay Long, the creator of the website, for defamation. In response to the ongoing lawsuit against Long, Kenneth Roberts posted on the website asking supporters of the site to donate to Long’s defense. Gravelle filed a complaint against Roberts in South Carolina, alleging that the post accused him of “filing frivolous lawsuits,” representing Gravelle and his company as lacking “integrity, honesty, trust, professionalism,” and lowering his reputation within his professional community. The trial court did not find the publication to be defamatory, and that “even if it was defamatory, it was not actionable per se.” Their decision was affirmed by the court of appeals.

Legislative activity

South Carolina lawmakers have proposed anti-SLAPP legislation three times. The most recent attempt came in 2018. The bill was unsuccessful.

Of note

Although there is no anti-SLAPP law in South Carolina, the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Act allows an attorney or pro se litigant to be sanctioned for “filing a frivolous pleading, motion, or document.” The act allows the prevailing party to receive reasonable payment for costs and attorney’s fees.