By Brian F. McBride

The Founding Fathers of the United States believed firmly in the freedom of speech and the right of citizens to petition the government for a redress of their grievances. This is precisely why these protections are codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In multiple court cases, including those that have reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the right to freedom of speech -- no matter how hurtful, vulgar or offensive -- is protected. The only exceptions to this right are discriminatory hate speech against protected characteristics, such as race, gender, ethnicity, religion and or disability.

Many people try to sue one another for damages related tp exercise of their First Amendment rights. These type of lawsuits are often called called "strategic lawsuits against public participation" -- or "SLAPP" suits, for short.

The filing of a SLAPP suit can chill public commentary on issues important to taxpayers, because they scare the defendants with a threat of excessive legal fees needed to defend the actions, which are often found later to be unconstitutional.

Accordingly, many states now have anti-SLAPP legislation that gives the defendant an "express lane" to dismiss an unconstitutional SLAPP suit. Such legislation can also permit the person victimized by a SLAPP suit to quickly recover their legal fees from the person or entity that filed the lawsuit.

New Jersey is one of the last states to discuss anti-SLAPP legislation. Currently, the main recourse for someone named in a SLAPP suit is to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees with a countersuit for malicious abuse of the court system. Several bloggers in Hudson County went this route and, in 2015, won a large victory after three-year battle against a SLAPP suit in which the plaintiff alleged he had been defamed.

The families then successfully put liens on the charging parties' bank accounts, garnished their wages, and had the local sheriff foreclose upon their home for failing to repay the thousands of dollars in legal fees the defendants incurred.

Legislation passed the New Jersey Assembly in March (A-603/S-3340) that allows defendants to apply to the courts for speedy dismissal of invalid SLAPP suits at a very early stage -- before defendants have to spend years, plus thousands of dollars that may never be recovered. The bill was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee in May, but has not been released. If not passed by both houses at the end of the 2016-2017 session, the measure will have to be reintroduced in 2018.

This legislation is very important because many New Jerseyans do not have the financial resources to fight SLAPP suits. Enacting the bill would enable attorneys to defend threats to free speech in a quick, cost effective manner for clients. It would also provide a swift punishment to those who abuse and clog our court system with irrelevant litigation.

I urge citizens to call to their state senator to encourage him or her to get the bill released from a Senate committee, so there can be a final vote in favor of this anti-SLAPP legislation.

Brian F. McBride writes from Washington Township, where he initiated a petition drive early this year against a salary ordinance that had been passed by the township council. Township officials later rejected the petitions as invalid. McBride contends that litigation filed against him by a township councilwoman, claiming that he attacked her personally on social media, is a SLAPP suit that was filed in retaliation for the petition drive.

Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.