Ron DeSantis and his crony legislature want to end free speech in Florida. This is how authoritarians operate. Florida bill attacking NYT v. Sullivan would ‘spell disaster’ for free speech https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-s...t-v-sullivan-would-spell-disaster-free-speech Statement from FIRE Legislative and Policy Director Joe Cohn Yesterday, Florida state legislator Rep. Alex Andrade introduced HB 951, a bill that seeks to roll back the protections for free speech secured by one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the last six decades: New York Times Company v. Sullivan. Sullivan has prevented the powerful from using defamation lawsuits to intimidate and silence their critics for more than a half-century. In Sullivan, a decision issued at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, the Supreme Court held that when suing for defamation, public officials must prove the defendant spoke with “actual malice” — that is, the defendant knew his or her words were false, or spoke with reckless disregard for the truth. Sullivan doesn’t protect deliberate falsehoods. But it does protect our right to speak out about our government and the issues of the day. By ensuring that simple mistakes made in criticizing powerful people and public figures don’t result in a costly, chilling lawsuit, the Sullivan threshold secures vitally important breathing room for public debate. HB 951 dangerously attacks the protections Sullivan recognized. If passed into law, it would narrow the list of people who may be deemed “public figures,” meaning a wider range of commentary on today’s public issues could result in a successful defamation lawsuit. The bill also declares that speech from anonymous sources will be presumed false, and that failure to “verify or corroborate an alleged defamatory statement” will constitute actual malice. What’s more, the bill proposes awarding costs and attorney’s fees to any plaintiff who wins a defamation suit — making it even riskier for both everyday citizens and the free press to engage with important issues. If HB 951 becomes law, the result will be far less discussion and debate on matters of public concern, as powerful public figures will be able to bully citizens and critics into silence via costly lawsuits. By presuming anonymous sources are lying, the law would kneecap investigative journalism. And by awarding costs and attorney’s fees to successful plaintiffs, the law would effectively dismantle Florida’s anti-SLAPP law, incentivizing meritless defamation claims and dissuading lawyers from representing defendants who can’t afford counsel. Passage of this dangerous bill would spell disaster for free speech by constricting the open debate that is critical for a democracy to function. FIRE will oppose HB 951 every step of the way. UPDATE: Shortly after the publication of this statement, Rep. Andrade withdrew HB 951 and introduced an even worse bill, HB 991, in its place. HB 991 exacerbates the threats to freedom of expression presented by HB 951. For example, with regard to anonymous sources, HB 991 does not simply presume that statements from anonymous sources are false, as in HB 951. Instead, HB 991 retains that presumption, but also goes further: When the journalist or media outlet refuses to identify an anonymous source, plaintiffs bringing a defamation claim need to prove only that statements from anonymous sources were published negligently, not with actual malice. FIRE will oppose HB 991 every step of the way.
Good! Here is the original bill: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/951/BillText/Filed/PDF and the updated one: https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sect...ocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0991&Session=2023 I totally support. Saying this is an attack on Free Speech is inaccurate, and what I would expect from those who are pro media having no accountability for investigation - what media used to do and instead media can just post anonymous sources with no investigative action, never having to back anything up or identify those sources, and slander anyone and anything they want - as they frequently do. This doesn't prevent any speech from being put out there - at all. Nothing is prevented. What it forces so-called "journalists" to do is back up their statements with actual journalistic research (something they have long since abandoned). Instead of getting some "anonymous source" to say something negative about the target of the hit piece they are putting out, or even making up anonymous sources, they have to verify the integrity of the claim before attacking the target. Again, this is Journalism-101. But not in today's narrative assassin "journalisming" that goes on. If they choose to just publish non-factual hit pieces from anonymous sources and don't verify authenticity through research, then they are liable for defamation. This is exactly how it should be. An excellent bill for those interested in news, and not narrative.
The only issues is this always has been a grey area of subjectiveness of media using anonymous cited sources to protect them and whether something is easily verified and what steps you have to go through before you can publish something. As always courts need to be mindful of a chilling effect. You want to stop media running a hit piece on someone because an anonymous source said "I heard him say blah blah" so hearsay rules can be applied to make things a little clearer. Journalists are not required to do research if they are presenting opinion pieces. Remember...tucker carlson did not have to research whether the MacDougal lawsuit was valid or a shake down, he was allowed to say what he thought on it. So you have to respect journalists' right to express an opinion and this is where the grey area comes in. It is not as easy to legislate as you think and the SC will always err on the side of 1st Amendment as proven in the Tucker Carlson case.
Presenting an editorial wouldn't fall under this. Its only if you're claiming something is true and quoting an anonymous source. If you're just writing "Why DeSantis shouldn't be ...." then there shouldn't and wouldn't be a defamation charge. But if you publish that DeSantis funneled state dollars to some illegal cause, based on anonymous sources, you'd have to show the proof or be liable for defamation. That's entirely how it should be.
DeSantisLand Antisemites Gather in Florida for Weekend of Hate https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/antisemites-gather-florida-weekend-hate-0
GDL is a network of rabidly antisemitic provocateurs led by Jon Minadeo who recently relocated to Florida from California. Unfortunately, with everyone wanting to move here, we sometimes get assholes as well. That's just a numbers game. Fortunately, you still live in North Carolina and are too afraid to step outside.
It is easy when it is painted at the extremes and you use a specific fact based example. Also in your example, you made up a specific crime. What if a journalist wrote an article that said DeSantis said is going aftger Disney because they spoke out against his bill and he wants to silence them according to an anonymous source. Should deSantis be able to sue?
MAGAtards still think moderating speech on private online outlets is a "free speech" issue, what the hell would they know about protecting a free press? https://money.howstuffworks.com/10-supreme-court-cases-journalists.htm