An Act to Protect Communications by Alleged Victims Regarding Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Misconduct, Cyberbullying or Discrimination from Litigation
Summary
LD 385 amends Maine’s anti-SLAPP-style protections in Title 14 to shield certain communications from litigation when they are made by people who have experienced, or reasonably believe they experienced, sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, cyberbullying, or discrimination. The bill adds a new protected category for communications made without malice about those incidents, even if the person never filed a formal complaint, so long as they had a reasonable basis to do so. It also updates related definitions and cross-references to align the statute with Maine Human Rights Act discrimination claims, harassment claims, and Title IX-related complaints.
In practical terms, the bill broadens the kinds of victim or complainant statements that may be used as a defense against lawsuits, helping protect reports, statements, and public communications about alleged misconduct from being the basis of defamation or similar litigation. The measure appears aimed at reducing legal risk for people who speak about alleged abuse or discrimination and at encouraging reporting and discussion of such conduct.
Impact
The bill amends 14 MRSA §§ 732 and 733, expanding the statutory protections against litigation for certain speech related to alleged sexual and discriminatory misconduct. It adds a new protected communication category and clarifies that discrimination includes conduct prohibited under specified Maine Human Rights Act provisions. The change affects potential plaintiffs and defendants in civil litigation by making it harder to sue over qualifying communications made without malice, including statements tied to complaints under state discrimination law and federal Title IX processes.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support but also notable opposition, passing the House on a narrow 72-70 vote for the majority ought-to-pass report. That close margin indicates the bill was viewed favorably by many lawmakers as a victim-protection measure, while others were concerned about its scope or legal consequences. No committee transcript is available here, but the split vote points to a mixed overall sentiment rather than broad consensus.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the breadth of the new protection for communications about alleged sexual assault, harassment, misconduct, cyberbullying, and discrimination, especially because it applies even when no formal complaint was filed. Supporters would view this as necessary to protect victims and complainants from retaliatory litigation and to encourage reporting, while opponents may worry it could be used too broadly, potentially limiting recourse for people who believe they were falsely accused or defamed. The inclusion of communications made 'without malice' is an important limiting condition, but the bill still expands the shield significantly beyond formal complaint settings.
An Act Concerning A Defamation Action Filed In Connection With Communications Relating To An Incident Of Sexual Misconduct, Sexual Abuse, Sexual Assault Or Sexual Harassment.
Grants an affirmative defense for certain privileged communications, including communications made by an individual, without malice, regarding an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination.
Grants an affirmative defense for certain privileged communications, including communications made by an individual, without malice, regarding an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination.
Grants an affirmative defense for certain privileged communications, including communications made by an individual, without malice, regarding an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination.