Q: What is the best defense against a slander lawsuit for whistleblowers in Ohio facing allegations from church pastors?

A: Ohio recently passed an anti-SLAPP statute, R.C. 2747.01, et seq, which can provide protection and a counterclaim for allegations of slander or defamation when the speech was protected speech.

The statute, R.C. 2747.01, et seq., “applies to a cause of action asserted in a civil action against a person based on any of the following:

The person’s communication in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding;

The person’s communication on an issue under consideration or review in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding;

The person’s exercise of the right of freedom of speech and of the press, the right to assemble and petition, and the right of association, guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Ohio Constitution, on a matter of public concern.”

Like other anti-SLAPP litigation, Ohio’s anti-SLAPP statute involves, in essence, two key questions: (1) whether the claim at issue is “based on” one of the above categories, and, if so (2) whether the proponent of the claim can establish, through appropriate evidence if necessary, that their claim could survive summary judgment proceedings. Like other jurisdictions, the burden of proving the applicability of the statute is on the movant, while it is the burden of the proponent of the claim demonstrate the viability of their cause of action.

Other key highlights of Ohio’s new anti-SLAPP legislation include:

A limited timeframe to pursue an anti-SLAPP motion

A limited timeframe for the Court to hold a hearing and, subsequently, rule upon an anti-SLAPP motion

An immediate right of appeal to movants whose anti-SLAPP motion has been denied

An automatic stay of discovery following the filing of an anti-SLAPP motion, which can be overcome under certain circumstances

The provision of reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and litigation expenses to the movant if the motion is granted, and the provision of reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and litigation expenses to the non-movant if the motion is denied and constitutes frivolous conduct

Three specific exceptions to the applicability of the statute, including what could be referred to as a “commercial speech exception”

For individuals considering litigation it is important to remember that Ohio’s anti-SLAPP law does NOT bar meritorious claims. Rather, it simply asks litigants to demonstrate the validity of those claims before engaging in the lengthy and expensive process of discovery. Additionally, unlike many jurisdictions, Ohio’s statutory scheme provides a relatively strict timeframe for filing and ruling upon anti-SLAPP motions and, accordingly, will ensure that meritorious cases are permitted to proceed without undue delay.

Conversely, those who face facially frivolous lawsuits arising from First Amendment conduct now have an expedited remedy to avoid the burden and cost of defending against litigation designed to infringe upon their rights.

A: Truth represents your strongest defense against slander allegations in Ohio, as demonstrable truth constitutes an absolute defense regardless of the plaintiff's wealth or status. Your defense attorney should immediately compile all available evidence supporting the factual basis of your statements, including victim testimonies, police reports, investigation documentation, and any other corroborating evidence that validates the claims made on social media.

Ohio lacks robust anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) protections compared to California, but your attorney may still file a motion to dismiss based on the public interest nature of your disclosures about potential sexual assault, particularly involving minors. The fact that law enforcement has opened investigations strengthens your position substantially, as courts generally recognize the public's right to know about serious allegations under investigation, especially when those allegations involve religious leaders who hold positions of trust and authority within the community.

You might also pursue a qualified privilege defense, arguing that you shared information in good faith to protect potential victims from harm, which courts often recognize as protected speech when concerning matters of significant public interest. Document all threats, intimidation attempts, or evidence suggesting the lawsuit aims primarily to silence legitimate speech rather than address actual defamation, as this pattern may persuade a judge that the case represents an abuse of the legal system. For comprehensive protection, consider consulting an Ohio attorney with experience defending whistleblowers and journalists, as state-specific procedural rules and relevant case precedent will prove crucial to developing your most effective defense strategy.