SLAPPs and digital policing: growing pressure on freedom of expression in Latin America
In recent years, various international and regional organisations have warned of a deterioration in freedom of expression and public participation in Latin America. This cannot be explained by a single reason, but rather by the coexistence of different practices and mechanisms that, in both formal and informal spheres, have an inhibiting effect on those who criticise and debate matters of public interest. Among these, strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPPs) and the abusive use of digital monitoring technologies occupy a central place in recent assessments.
A regional report prepared by FIBGAR in early 2025 analysed the use of SLAPPs as a form of abusive litigation aimed at discouraging expression and criticism on matters of public interest in Latin America, taking into account the analysis of the current situation in 11 countries with different characteristics and contexts. The document identified that these actions, which are unfounded and disproportionate lawsuits, are often promoted by actors with economic, political or corporate power, and are directed against journalists, human rights defenders, activists and alerters who denounce irregularities, corruption or abuses, among others. According to the report, the distinctive characteristic of SLAPPs is not their judicial success, but their ability to cause economic and emotional exhaustion, as well as to produce broader dissuasive and self-censorship effects on society and those who exercise critical thinking.
The proliferation of SLAPPs in the region is facilitated by legislative frameworks that do not incorporate adequate safeguards to protect freedom of expression and public participation, as well as by judicial practices that enable the prolonged processing of these manifestly disproportionate and unfounded lawsuits. As noted in the report, these actions can become effective tools of indirect censorship, even when they do not result in convictions.
For their part, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression (RELE) of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) recently documented the impact of the use of digital security technologies on the exercise of freedom of expression in the Americas in its report ‘The Impact of Digital Security on Freedom of Expression in the Americas.’ The report warns that states have resorted to invasive monitoring systems—including the use of spyware—to monitor journalists, human rights defenders, lawyers, political opponents, and civil society organisations[1]. The Special Rapporteur emphasises that these practices directly affect the right to privacy and have serious consequences for other interrelated rights.
It is a fact that digital monitoring has widespread inhibitory effects, as the knowledge or suspicion of being monitored also leads to self-censorship, changes in professional routines, and restrictions on contact with sources. In this regard, the report includes numerous testimonies from individuals under surveillance who describe persistent psychological impacts, such as stress, fear, and paranoia, as well as specific limitations on the exercise of investigative journalism and the defence of human rights.
The IACHR document also warned that digital monitoring is no longer considered an exceptional measure. The Special Rapporteurship observes a worrying trend towards the normalisation of vigilance in the context of state digitisation processes, which reverses the standard of international human rights law, which requires that any interference with privacy be legal, necessary, proportionate and exceptional. This reversal also presents, according to the report, structural challenges for the rule of law and democratic governance[2].
Although the reports analyse different phenomenons, reading them together reveals that both SLAPPs and digital monitoring have similar effects on civic space. Both mechanisms particularly affect those who participate in sensitive public debates or matters of public interest, creating a climate of intimidation and self-censorship. This convergence of impacts is particularly relevant for understanding the contemporary dynamics of indirect restrictions on freedom of expression in the region.
This becomes particularly visible when looking at some of the national contexts analysed in the reports. Mexico, for example, has been identified in various regional reports both for its use of abusive lawsuits against journalists and human rights defenders and for serious episodes of digital vigilancia targeting actors in the civic space. Without implying a direct causal relationship between the two phenomenons, the coexistence of these practices points to an environment that is particularly adverse to the exercise of freedom of expression. Similarly, in countries such as Colombia, various reports have documented the combination of judicial and technological pressures on those who participate in public debates related to human rights, territorial conflicts, and corruption, which contributes to increasing the inhibitory effects on public participation.
Both reports agree on the existence of significant accountability deficits. In the case of SLAPPs, FIBGAR noted the absence of effective mechanisms to sanction or combat the abuse of the right to litigate. With regard to digital monitoring, the IACHR highlights state opacity, the use of state confidentiality, and technical difficulties in detecting and attributing responsibility, which contribute to impunity and the persistence of violations[3].
From this perspective, the reports underscore the need for regulatory and institutional responses that address these issues from a human rights perspective. This includes the adoption of anti-SLAPP laws and the establishment of clear limits, independent controls, and reparation mechanisms against the abusive use of digital monitoring, as indispensable conditions for protecting freedom of expression and democratic participation in Latin America.
Beyond the specific issues they address, a comparative reading of both reports reveals a common pattern in contemporary forms of restriction of freedom of expression in Latin America. Neither SLAPPs nor digital monitoring generally operate through explicit prohibitions on speech or direct censorship mechanisms. On the contrary, they are part of a more sophisticated logic that shifts control from content to the conditions under which that content is produced, circulated and sustained over time.
In this sense, both practices share a central characteristic: they transfer the cost and impact of critical public participation to those who engage in it. In the case of SLAPPs, this cost takes the form of years of litigation, financial expenses, emotional exhaustion, and public exposure. In the case of digital surveillance, it is expressed in the erosion of privacy, the breakdown of bonds of trust, the constant fear of observation, and the impact on personal and professional security. In both scenarios, the result is similar: the internalisation of risk and progressive self-censorship.
This dynamic is particularly worrying, as it relies on instruments that are, on the surface, legitimate. Access to justice and the use of technologies for security purposes are, in themselves, recognised components of democratic states. However, when these instruments are used abusively or disproportionately, they become vehicles for the indirect restriction of fundamental rights. The effect is not the immediate suppression of critical discourse, but its gradual undermining and confinement to increasingly restricted margins.
Another relevant point of contact between the two phenomenon is their differentiated impact on certain actors in the public sphere. Investigative journalists, human rights defenders, environmental activists, community leaders and social organisations tend to be the focus of both abusive lawsuits and monitoring practices. This targeting is no coincidence: these are the people who produce uncomfortable information, challenge powerful interests or highlight structural conflicts. In this way, the disciplinary message transcends the direct victims and is projected across the entire public debate.
The coexistence of SLAPPs and digital monitoring raises profound questions about the quality of democracy in the region. When public participation involves taking disproportionate risks, the debate is impoverished and democratic deliberation becomes asymmetrical. Not all actors participate on equal terms, and silence becomes less of a choice and more of a survival strategy[4].
In this context, the response cannot be limited to partial solutions. The adoption of anti-SLAPP regulatory frameworks and the establishment of effective limits on digital monitoring should be understood as part of the same agenda for protecting civic space. Otherwise, there is a risk of addressing the symptoms without addressing the underlying logic: a progressive normalisation of mechanisms that discourage criticism and silently but persistently erode freedom of expression and democratic participation in Latin America.
Javier Graña Gianoni, Fibgar contributor.
If you would like to read more about the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation in Latin America, we recommend the report ‘Challenges to freedom of expression, the rule of law and democracy in Latin America’, produced by FIBGAR. You can read the full report or the country-specific reports here.
[1] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression (RELE), The impact of digital surveillance on freedom of expression in the Americas, para. 74.
[2] IACHR–RELE, para. 73.
[3] IACHR–RELE, para. 135-136.
[4] Added to this scenario is the rise of authoritarian tendencies that restrict freedom of expression and the right to protest, which we analysed in our latest article on the subject, ‘Long live freedom, damn it? Gagged democracies: freedom of expression in times of authoritarian setbacks.’ We invite you to read it.
