Florida Republicans are pushing to make it easier to sue reporters for defamation, upsetting many First Amendment advocates and publishers across the country. When it reaches the governor’s desk, a bill pair now making its way through the Legislature can fundamentally change how media outlets report on public figures.
Among other things, the bill lowers the bar for defamation cases, limits protections for journalists using anonymous sources in such cases, and limits the circumstances under which the media can win attorney’s fees if they countersue for legal attacks.
The proposed changes go directly to the heart of the US Supreme Court case that defined modern defamation law with an “actual crime” standard in 1964, the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan — and provoked the court’s conservative majority to radically reconsider American libel law. can be part of the goal.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a proud pugilist against the mainstream press, hosted panel discussion in February featuring, among others, Nicholas Sandmann, who sued a raft of major outlets over coverage of the 2019 virus meeting with Native American activists in Washington. (Sandmann settled suit with three outlets, and the case against five others was dismissed by a federal judge.) During the discussion, DeSantis thought that “maybe there are some other judges who will accept” to review the Sullivan decision, in addition to Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, both sides has asked the court to reconsider the case.
“It’s encouraging to see the Legislature take up the important topic of media responsibility and join the conversation that the governor started,” Jeremy Redfern, DeSantis’ deputy press secretary, told HuffPost. “We are following this legislation through the legislative process.”
But if DeSantis and his Republican allies envision the bill as a noble battle against the so-called liberal media, it may come as a surprise: Publishers of right-wing outlets are increasingly worried that the new law will also undermine themselves. operation.
The Florida Standard, a conservative website, has made his own name with scoops from the governor’s office. But it also expands on false claims like “Ex-Pharma Exec Says COVID-19 Shot Is US Government’s Biowarfare Operation Against Its Own Population” – view that CEO and Editor-in-Chief Will Witton the phone with HuffPost, he said he did not share.
Witt, a former PragerU video personality who moved to Florida from Los Angeles, stands by his own past claims that he was racist “great replacement“Conspiracy theories are real and that parents who bring their children to the pride parade – where “people are sexually active in the street” – should be charged with abuse.
Now, Witt said, he is concerned about defamation exposure, if the legislation passes.
“The way it’s structured now is dangerous for everyone,” he said. “It’s really more of a First Amendment issue than a ‘media responsibility’ issue.” Reflecting on past stories covered on the site, Witt admits, “We might say, editorially, that we don’t want to publish some of these things now because of what happened. [legislation].”
Brendon Leslie, founder of Florida’s Voice – “a patriotic news network“in conscience to “destroy fake news” – told HuffPost in an email that the proposals will “disproportionately impact small people,” flood the company without a legal team with frivolous lawsuits.
“This is basically bullying journalists into submitting to divulge sources,” he said about the language in HB 991, the state House version of the legislation, which would make the assumption that anonymous sources are false.
“This is basically bullying journalists into submitting their sources.”
– Brendon Leslie, founder of Florida’s Voice
“Lowering the threshold for suing for defamation, as a public figure, will have a boomerang effect,” Leslie said. “Republicans will throw it at the liberal media, smack it in the face, and then come right back to smack the conservative media in the face. This can of worms is not worth opening.”
A crackdown on journalists’ defamation defenses would hurt right-wing outlets in the country as much as they would center or left-wing ones, said Carol LoCicero, a media attorney who testified against HB 991 before the committee approved the proposal. Another bill, SB 1220, was approved by the state Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
Christian radio stations, popular in Florida, often have small legal budgets, Locicero noted, and “provocative” conservative talk shows can be vulnerable to lawsuits. “It’s really going to affect anyone who opens their mouth or touches a keyboard,” LoCicero said.
And they’ll know: Locicero’s company is defending right-wing outlet Newsmax against a lawsuit from conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi after a guest accused Corsi of plagiarism and said he’s “never come across the truth.” (The lawsuit was dismissed. Larry Klayman, Corsi’s attorney in the case, warned HuffPost on the phone not to blame him, and later called the proposed bill “very positive.”)
Leslie said that publishers are worried about the bill and they talk behind the scenes to each other, but he called it “shameful” that others have not come out publicly. Florida’s Voice, for its part, reported one exception: the owner of 92.5, the right-wing Fox News radio station in south Florida, who wrote in a letter to lawmakers that HB 991 would end the “neutering” of the station and create an unacceptable amount of liability. done.
Today, 92.5 carries content from commentators Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. However, station owner James Schwartzel reportedly wrote, if the current legislative proposal becomes law, “We will change our conservative programming, and the broadcaster will stop.”
“The damage,” he added, “will be heavy and swift. Republicans will lose one of their most important platforms to reach their base forever.
Despite the impressive array of conservative voices, opposition to the bill comes from across the political spectrum. The Miami Herald’s editorial board slammed HB 991 as “blatant hypocrisy” in what DeSantis called the “free state of Florida,” with the newspaper saying the legislation was intended to “muzzle” negative press.
Testimony against both proposals came from representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union, the First Amendment Foundation and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
During a House subcommittee hearing on HB 991, Christopher Stranburg, director of legislative affairs at the Florida post of the conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, argued against changing the bill for “anti-SLAPP” provisions – that is, existing laws disincentivizing baseless defamation claims . , including by awarding attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. Stranburg said the change would prevent Floridians from protecting themselves from “horrific” lawsuits.
Immediately after him, Jon Harris Maurer, public policy director of the LGBTQ advocacy organization Equality Florida, cited a section in the bill that states that accusations of discrimination in themselves are defamation – while remaining silent on accusations, for example, of “grooming” children. (Calling someone a “groomer” is just “hyperbole,” Rep. Alex Andrade, the Republican who sponsored the bill, said later in the hearing.)
HB 991 and SB 1220 propose changes through various channels, including stripping rules protecting anonymous sources of journalists in defamation suits, and lowering the bar in defamation cases brought by public figures from so-called actual malice — in essence, intentionally publishing lie or act. with complete disregard for the truth – acting “recklessly” when anonymous sources are cited.
The bill would also limit the actual crime standard to stories related to a “reason” for a particular public figure’s public status — excluding other stories that may be in the public interest.
“If only official conduct is the issue and it’s fair game, then allegations of sexual misconduct [politicians] Bill Clinton or Al Franken may not show up,” First Amendment attorney Rachel Fugate said during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In addition, both bills encourage forum-shopping in the state by allowing plaintiffs to sue in any county where the allegedly defamatory material was accessed – meaning a plaintiff from north Florida could force a publisher in Miami to travel several hours for a hearing, and vice versa return.
“Because they depart significantly from established Supreme Court precedent and other states’ defamation laws, these proposals may make Florida a destination for defamation plaintiffs seeking a friendly forum,” wrote the Reporting Committee for Freedom of the Press, a nonprofit organization that provides legal advice. . services and resources for journalists.
Peter Schorsch, a former political operative and longtime publisher of the state who now runs FloridaPolitics.com — and who is known for breaking the story of the 2022 FBI search at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort — expressed frustration at what was being done. said there was “a warped sense of what journalism is” between Florida’s legal and political classes.
“I’m shocked at how ignorant a lot of the legal community, and most of the political community, is about defamation laws,” Schorsch said, estimating that he now spends $50,000 to $100,000 a year dealing with potential legal problems. “It will put us in a defensive position, just to report the blocking and tackling, and the basic function of the campaign,” he said of the rules.
“I’m amazed at how ignorant a lot of the legal community, and most of the political community, is about defamation law.”
– Peter Schorsch, publisher of FloridaPolitics.com
Schorsch said he believes DeSantis is sponsoring the bill, Andrade and Sen. Jason Brodeur, permission to do something he’s wanted for a long time: suppress the Florida press. “You have two MPs here who have had trouble with the media – for whatever reason – taking it back on the media,” he said. (None of the sponsors returned HuffPost’s request for comment.)
Schorsch added that he thinks “newly conservative sites” like The Florida Standard and Florida’s Voice will be hurt the most by the legislation — “the most politically aligned with the Legislature,” he said.
For his part, Witt believes the bill could hurt publishers across the political spectrum. Regardless, he is concerned about the consequences for the website if “journalists are literally thrown under the bus if something they say can be deemed ‘true’ or ‘false’ by some politicized court.”
“Right now, I don’t know what’s going to happen,” he said. “You can have a constitutional court, which looks objectively. But you and I know that in all the courts in America, it is not like that. It is difficult to know how the court will react to a certain story.