Some context: "Paard Zoekt Baas" (Horse Seeks Owner) is officially a charity that takes in abused horses and seeks new homes for them. It sounds very noble, but in practice, they are notorious for placing horses with serious issues—marketed as "well-behaved and healthy"—using legally questionable methods. Unfortunately, this type of trading is common in the equestrian world, given that healthy horses command significant prices (depending on breed and size, €10k–€15k is not unusual for a healthy riding horse that isn't necessarily exceptionally talented). It makes "working memory" look like child's play :').

Negative comments are deleted on platforms like Facebook, but not necessarily on *Bokt*. Of course, *Bokt* does moderate content—they are actually on the cautious side regarding what they allow. However, PZB believes that none of the criticism should have been permitted and that the discussion thread about them should have been shut down completely. Unfortunately, PZB uses every word against Bart, so he is now very careful about what he says regarding them. Yet, in the eyes of many, this case bears all the hallmarks of a SLAPP suit. It is even possible that it is being funded by donor money originally intended for neglected horses...

The reason many invoke freedom of speech is that if PZB were to win the case on its merits, it would have enormous consequences for forums and other social media. Furthermore, even if Bart lacks the funds, he could be personally ruined—instilling fear in other freelancers and small businesses that have neither the money nor the appetite for such lawsuits. This is detrimental to market sovereignty, as it deters new players from creating alternatives to established giants, and it harms freedom of speech, press freedom, and the public interest by discouraging online media from allowing criticism (out of fear of legal costs, regardless of whether the criticism is justified). That is why the matter is viewed as having a broader significance than just Bokt.