Of course I've heard of them, I just don't see how they apply in this case (I notice you didn't explain it). SLAPP suits are intended to prevent nuisance lawsuits where the person with deep pockets uses legal costs to keep his opponent from having a fair day in court.
Hogan won his suit so handily that the jury wanted to award him MORE than the $115 million they did give him. So obviously the trial didn't fit the SLAPP definition.
And do you understand why people don't like to fiddle with hypothetical questions? The person posing the question needs to be very clever so as to make the hypothetical fit the circumstances.Where did I say that? My question assumes the circumstances are exactly identical except for substituting the names. Do you even understand the concept of a hypothetical question?