The intent here seems clear enough. It is to remove private actors and disputes from the reach of the SLAPP statute — for example, claims that a company’s products are unsafe, damage the environment, etc. One could disagree with the policy behind this, but it doesn’t seem vague to me at all.

Understanding that claiming that a law one dislikes is vague is a standard legal tactic and indeed can be an ethical obligation for a defense lawyer. nonetheless it has its limits.

Judges have an obligation to try and understand what the legislature is up to, even when they don’t like it. Claiming that one doesn’t understand what it means when what’s really going on is one doesn’t like what is doing is a subterfuge to assert ones will and deny the legislature its right to legislate. Claiming that views different from ones own are irrational is similar. One can always avoid seeing another person’s point of view if one is sufficiently willfully blind.

As our expert states, Professor Volokh is entitled to argue against narrowing the concept of "public" in SLAPP statutes on any grounds he wants. But the language here communicates the intent to narrow clearly enough that it would be better to play ones hand and argue the merits rather than try to claim the language lacks discernable meaning. All language is somewhat vague, and this proposal is no different. But this language is a lot less vague than many laws.

One is reminded of the vagueness challenge to an obscenity law that claimed "oral intercourse" was simply people engaged in conversation. Perhaps, but in the context of an obscenity law, very unlikely. Here too, the fact that words could be twisted to a bizarre meaning doesn’t make it likely the proposal is intended to mean it.
⋮