Alaska
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: Alaska does not have an anti-SLAPP law.
Helpful cases: Although Alaska lawmakers have never passed an anti-SLAPP law, the following cases in the state reflect principles that anti-SLAPP laws are meant to uphold: protecting free speech on public issues, imposing higher burdens of proof on public figures alleging defamation, and deterring meritless lawsuits through the awarding of attorney’s fees to defendants. Specifically, Alaska Civil Rule 82 requires as a default that prevailing parties in a civil case be awarded at least a portion of their attorney’s fees, providing a strong basis for defamation defendants facing frivolous lawsuits to offset some of their costs.
- Olivit v. City & Borough of Juneau, 171 P.3d 1137 (Alaska 2007): Jake Olivit, Sr. sued the Juneau Empire newspaper and reporter Tony Carroll, as well as city officials, alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress resulting from defendants’ article describing Olivit’s lawsuits and police harassment allegations against the city. The trial court dismissed all claims, and the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed, finding that “each of the article’s three challenged statements is conditionally privileged and not actionable unless it was false and defamatory and uttered with actual malice,” id. at 1143, and that plaintiff failed to make any showing of actual malice or rebut the affidavit from the reporter attesting to his belief that the article was true. The court also upheld an award of attorney’s fees to the defendants under Alaska Civil Rule 82 (20% of defendants’ total fees incurred, as mandated by the statute).
- Mount Juneau Enterprises, Inc. v. Juneau Empire, 891 P.2d 829 (Alaska 1995): Mount Juneau Enterprises sued the Juneau Empire newspaper for libel, alleging two articles published by the newspaper defamed them. The trial court determined—and the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed—that (1) as to one article, Charles Keen, the main figure in the company, was a public figure who needed to demonstrate actual malice; and (2) as to the other article, the subject of the article was a matter of public interest, again meaning that proof of actual malice was required for the newspaper to be held liable. Because plaintiff “present[ed] no evidence indicating that the Juneau Empire fabricated the articles at issue, created them from imagination, based them on an anonymous phone call, or could consider them inherently improbable,” the court held that it failed to show actual malice and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Juneau Empire. Id. at 839–840. Further, pursuant to Alaska Civil Rule 82, the superior court awarded the Juneau Empire 60% of its claimed attorney’s fees—more than the typical 20%, because “plaintiff insisted on a lengthy continuance and a significant amount of discovery (which was of minimal assistance in resolving the summary judgment issue). Thus a significant amount of the Empire’s fees is the result of plaintiff’s own conduct.” Id. at 841. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision as to fees.
Legislative activity: No current legislative activity.