[adastra22]

> The ill that it's supposed to address is people hassling government officials who are just doing their jobs.

How? If they're doing their jobs, then they are in the right and would be defended by their agency. If they are doing something illegal, they'd be in trouble. But that's the point!

[PaulDavisThe1st]

They might be defended by their agency (though being "in the right" doesn't appear to be a pre-requisite for that anyway). But they would/could still be subject to lawsuit after lawsuit, which hardly suits the intended goal of government, does it?

[adastra22]

Make the losing side pay attorney fees. (This is a general fix for a lot of issues in the legal system.)

[parineum]

That's a good way to stop poor people from trying to sue anyone with better access to lawyers.

[zbentley]

Poor people already cannot afford most legal services, and (other than a very small percentage of cases brought on a volunteer or nearly-volunteer basis at the goodwill of law firms) very rarely file suit without legal fees sought in restitution. Of those that don’t, it’s understood that recouping legal fees from lower income clients is far from guaranteed due to bankruptcy risk.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

That doesn't cover SLAPP, where the purpose is not restitution, but, as the acronym puts it, a lawsuit "against public participation".