South Carolina
This guide was authored by Zivile Raskauskaite, Skye Lucas, and Sara George, working with Professor Jared Schroeder at the Missouri School of Journalism. Grant support for this project was provided by the Society to Protect Journalists and the Reynolds Journalism Institute.
Anti-SLAPP protection: South Carolina does not have an anti-SLAPP law.
Helpful Cases: South Carolina has never had an anti-SLAPP law, nor has any state court explicitly cited SLAPP-related concerns in a decision. These cases, however, might be helpful to publishers facing a SLAPP in South Carolina.
- Stokes v. Oconee Cnty., 895 S.E.2d 689 (S.C. Ct. App. 2023): Former county employee David Stoke sued the county and the two council members for slander per se related to negative statements they made about him and his department. In response, the defendants filed counterclaims for abuse of process, defamation, and “frivolous lawsuit.” The lower court granted the defendants summary judgment on Stoke’s slander claim, but rejected their counterclaims. The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding that Stokes was a public official who failed to show actual malice, and failed to show that the challenged statements were false and were directed at him individually.
- Garrard v. Charleston Cnty. Sch., 838 S.E.2d 698 (S.C. Ct. App. 2019): Plaintiffs, a high school football coach and several of his players, filed defamation claims against a newspaper publisher, the school district, and others for statements they made regarding an allegedly racist post-game ritual that the football team participated in. The trial court granted summary judgment and the appellate court affirmed, finding that (1) many of the newspaper’s statements were covered by the fair report privilege because they accurately reported statements by school district officials, (2) many of the statements were nonactionable statements of opinion about a matter of public concern, (3) the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of damages arising from injury to their reputations, (4) the challenged statements were not “of and concerning” the individual football player plaintiffs, because they involved the whole team, and (5) the football coach plaintiff was a public official and failed to present any evidence of actual malice by the newspaper/publisher.
Legislative activity: South Carolina lawmakers have proposed anti-SLAPP legislation three times. The most recent attempt came in 2018. The bill was unsuccessful.
Of note: Although there is no anti-SLAPP law in South Carolina, the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Act allows an attorney or pro se litigant to be sanctioned for “filing a frivolous pleading, motion, or document” and for the prevailing party to receive reasonable payment for costs and attorney’s fees. S.C. Code § 15-36-10.