Dem legislators reintroduce bill to protect free speech rights from frivolous lawsuits

by The Badger Project, The Badger Project
September 15, 2025

The "anti-SLAPP" bill would make it harder in Wisconsin to use costly lawsuits against people for exercising their free speech rights. A similar bill died in 2024 without any GOP support.

By Annie Pulley, THE BADGER PROJECT

Shereen Siewert and her central Wisconsin news organization were sued for their accurate reporting. She eventually won her case, but not before racking up $180,000 in legal bills.

“I was named personally in the suit we faced, and the experience was harrowing,” Siewert, the founder and publisher of the Wausau Pilot & Review, wrote in an email.

A few Democrats in the Wisconsin State Legislature recently announced a bill that would have helped Siewert and any member of the public avoid the punishing legal fees from a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuits against public participation, case.

SLAPP suits stifle individuals, journalists and news organizations through what are often costly and baseless lawsuits, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. They’re brought in “bad faith,” says the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

Democratic state Reps. Christian Phelps of Eau Claire, Deb Andraca of Whitefish Bay and Alex Joers of Waunakee announced another attempt to push back against these lawsuits in a memo they circulated to every member of the state Legislature in late August.

Phelps, the lead author, cited a political atmosphere that has a “distinct and unusual” undertone of “anti-free speech.” He largely attributes this to President Donald Trump. 

Joers introduced an anti-SLAPP proposal in 2023, but it died the following spring without a single Republican co-sponsor. Republicans currently control both houses of the Wisconsin State Legislature.

The bill, if it were to pass, would offer protections to anyone who exercises their free speech rights, including community organizers, protesters and journalists.

“I think this legislation would affect everybody” in the state, Phelps said. “It isn’t only journalists that need legal protection against efforts to suppress their free speech; it is anybody who ever wishes to employ their human rights to speak freely and criticize their government.”

More than 60% of the U.S. population lives in a state that provides “good” protection from SLAPP cases, according to a 2025 report from the Institute for Free Speech, a Washington-based nonprofit dedicated to the First Amendment.

But if you live in Wisconsin, you’re not among that protected majority. 

Thirty-eight states and Washington have “a functioning anti-SLAPP statute,” says the report, which ranked states from A to F based on the strength of their anti-SLAPP protections. Wisconsin is among 12 states, including Michigan, that do not provide any anti-SLAPP protections. Minnesota and Iowa have A ratings.

In Siewert’s case, her nonprofit newsroom became the subject of national attention after it reported that now state Sen. Cory Tomcyzk (R-Mosinee) used an anti-gay slur to refer to a teenage boy while at a county board meeting in 2021, before he was elected.

Tomcyzk sued and later appealed when the lower court dismissed the defamation case. His appeal failed in 2024, and Siewert stood by her reporting. But it cost her. 

A GoFundMe campaign recouped about $137,000 of the $180,000 in legal bills, Siewert said. But it went beyond monetary consequences as advertisers and big donors pulled back.

“Defending ourselves against this lawsuit nearly destroyed our organization,” Siewert wrote. “We ultimately prevailed, but Wisconsin law left us with no way to recover the enormous legal costs.”

The bill proposed by Democrats this session would give defendants the ability to make a special motion to strike a SLAPP case if the defendant was acting “in furtherance of his or her right of petition or free speech” in connection “with a public issue,” according to the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau, which offers analysis of bills to legislators and the public. Defendants could also recoup legal fees if their motion to strike succeeded. 

Already, Phelps predicts the bill’s demise. Trump probably wouldn’t support this bill, Phelps said. And that tends to be a “litmus test” for state-level support. The proposal received a bill number and was assigned to a committee Sept. 15. It has yet to attract Republican support.

Most top Republicans in the state Assembly and Senate did not respond to repeated requests for comments. A spokesperson for Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dan Feyen (R-Fond du Lac) said Feyen “does not have any opinion yet and likely won’t until it goes through a public hearing and he has heard from his constituents.”

Phelps maintains that the language of the bill applies regardless of political affiliation. 

“This is not legislation that says, ‘We are protecting progressive journalists’ right to write progressive op-eds,’” Phelps said. “This is legislation that says you can’t weaponize litigation against anybody employing their right to free speech and to criticize the government.”

The Badger Project is a nonpartisan, citizen-supported journalism nonprofit in Wisconsin.

This article first appeared on The Badger Project and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.