House Bill 391, introduced in the New Hampshire Legislature on January 23, 2025, aims to protect citizens and organizations from strategic lawsuits against public participation, commonly known as anti-SLAPP lawsuits. Sponsored by Representatives Corcoran and Osborne, the bill seeks to establish a legal framework that grants qualified immunity to defendants in cases where their First Amendment rights are at stake.

The primary objective of HB 391 is to encourage open dialogue and participation in public discourse by ensuring that individuals can express their opinions without the fear of facing retaliatory legal action. The bill defines a SLAPP as a strategic lawsuit intended to silence or intimidate individuals exercising their rights to free speech and petition. It emphasizes the need for swift resolution of such cases to minimize the financial burden on those defending their constitutional rights.

Key provisions of the bill include the establishment of a new chapter in the New Hampshire Revised Statutes, which outlines the criteria for anti-SLAPP immunity. This includes protections for any civil claims or administrative proceedings that are based, in whole or in part, on a party's exercise of their rights related to public concern.

The introduction of HB 391 has sparked discussions among lawmakers and advocacy groups. Proponents argue that the bill is essential for safeguarding free speech and promoting civic engagement, particularly in an era where public participation is increasingly challenged by legal threats. Critics, however, express concerns about potential misuse of the law, fearing it could shield individuals from legitimate legal accountability.

The implications of this legislation could be significant, as it may alter the landscape of public discourse in New Hampshire. Legal experts suggest that if passed, the bill could empower more citizens to engage in discussions on contentious issues without the fear of litigation, potentially leading to a more vibrant democratic process.

As the bill moves through the legislative process, its future remains uncertain. The Judiciary Committee will review the proposal, and further debates are expected as stakeholders weigh the balance between protecting free speech and ensuring accountability in public discourse.