To determine whether speech or other conduct falls within the scope of CCP 425.16(e)(4)’s catchall provision, the court must make a two-step analysis, first asking what public issue or issue of public interest the defendant’s conduct or speech implicates, and second asking what functional relationship exists between the speech and the public conversation about that issue of public interest–i.e., whether it contributed to the public debate on that issue. The first step is satisfied so long as the challenged speech or conduct, considered in light of its context, may reasonably be understood to implicate a public issue, even if it also implicates a private dispute. Only when an expressive activity, viewed in context, cannot reasonably be understood as implicating a public issue does an anti-SLAPP motion fail at the first step. The court is to apply an objective standard in evaluating the first step, not the parties’ perceptions or motivations. In particular, parties are often motivated to engage in discussion of issues of public interest by the impact of those broader concerns on them personally. Their personal interest or motivation does not detract from a finding that the conduct involved a matter of public interest. The protest here also satisfied the second step, contributing to the public debate through media attention