Enlarge USA TODAY  USA TODAY OPINION About Editorials/Debate Opinions expressed in USA TODAY's editorials are decided by its Editorial Board, a demographically and ideologically diverse group that is separate from USA TODAY's news staff. Most editorials are accompanied by an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature that allows readers to reach conclusions based on both sides of an argument rather than just the Editorial Board's point of view.

The dentist, Gelareh Rahbar, responded on Yelp that Batoon's review was posted only after the dentist reported her to a credit bureau for a delinquent bill. She then went on to detail Batoon's dental problems.

Other patients weighed in, too, mostly praising Rahbar. But the free exchange, so typical of the Internet, didn't satisfy Rahbar. Last fall, she sued for defamation, charging that the review caused a drop in her revenue.

Batoon says she was shocked when she got served and "fearful about the prospect of paying tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees." Last November, though, thanks to a California law designed to protect public speech, a judge threw out the defamation counts. Last month, he ordered Rahbar to pay $43,000 for Batoon's legal fees.

Victory for Batoon, yes. Still, she didn't walk away unscathed — and neither did free speech. Once a prolific Yelp reviewer, Batoon now limits herself to occasional reviews and only positive ones. The Internet community lost one voice.

Such suits are becoming more common as miffed consumers who once warned friends not to patronize a business now publish their opinions on websites such as Yelp, Facebook pages or personal blogs.

A towing firm in Kalamazoo, Mich., for example, is suing a college student for slamming the firm on a Facebook page after it towed his car from a lot where he says he had permission to park. In February, a company that owns an Omaha knitting store sued a woman for negative comments on her personal blog. They sought $500,000 in damages, but later dropped the case.

Make no mistake: It's a certainty that some people lie for hidden motives, and people or businesses have every right to defend themselves against false accusations. But if moneyed interests can use the legal system to intimidate their critics, many honest reviewers will fear speaking their minds.

In theory, consumers would ultimately prevail. The Constitution guarantees a right to express opinions, even outlandish ones, as long as the facts are right. But the right has no meaning if people fear being bankrupted by the cost of defending themselves. In the process, the public stands to lose a useful source of information.

Which seems to be the whole idea.

It's a new twist on an old tactic, in which well-heeled landlords, developers and, most outrageously, government officials sued citizens who were causing them grief.

Often, the suits were meritless. The object wasn't to win but to intimidate, and they were dubbed SLAPP suits, for "strategic lawsuit against public participation."

In 1992, California came up with a solution: an "anti-SLAPP" law that made it easier for defendants to seek early dismissal of such suits at no cost. Twenty-six other states followed, though only a few laws are as strong.

Now two members of Congress are pushing a similar measure to govern federal courts. Good. They won't have an easy time protecting both honest critics and the falsely accused, but they should err on the side of protecting free speech.

People who are unfairly attacked could still fight back. They'd just have to rely more on the court of public opinion, where they'd prevail only if the facts are on their side.