Been pondering the notion of anti-SLAPP suits (essentially, frivolous lawsuits which attack free speech; see Popehat for information).
And I've come to a rather curious conclusion.
Anti-SLAPP statutes don't go far enough. Statues in general protecting against frivolous lawsuits don't go far enough. It's not enough that when the threat is brought to bear that there be repercussions - the threat itself is an act which suppresses and harms freedom.
The -threat- of a frivolous suit should be treated as the threat of physical violence that underlays it. To whit, it should be treated no differently from a threat of physical violence, subject to the same laws which govern threats of physical violence.
Does anyone see a reason why such threats shouldn't?