Conservatives (and I use the term loosely), What do You Think of the 2 Florida Bills Attacking NYT v Sullivan?

[Loulit01]

DeSantis wants to roll back press freedoms — with an eye toward overturning Supreme Court ruling​

DeSantis wants to roll back press freedoms — with an eye toward overturning Supreme Court ruling

Florida Republicans are seeking to weaken laws protecting journalists.

www.politico.com

Florida Is Trying to Take Away the American Right to Speak Freely​

Opinion | Florida Is Trying to Take Away the American Right to Speak Freely (Published 2023)

There’s still time for state lawmakers to reject the crude pandering of a bill that seeks to overturn a bulwark of First Amendment law.

www.nytimes.com

Florida Takes Aim at the First Amendment​

Florida Takes Aim at the First Amendment

Two bills in the Republican-controlled state legislature propose radical alteration to libel laws.

www.newyorker.com

 

[Napoleon]

Sounds like a reasonable adjustment to the law. What the Florida bills amount to is the addition of a willful negligence/ignorance component which closes a loophole in the existing precedent.

 

[A Linoge]

I have seen where liberal in california think free speech should be limited especially in the area of politics

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Sounds like a reasonable adjustment to the law. What the Florida bills amount to is the addition of a willful negligence/ignorance component which closes a loophole in the existing precedent.

I mean it is only one of the most disgusting attacks on freedom of press and the 1st amendment a governor of a state has ever supported. So it makes sense you'd support it.

 

[Napoleon]

I mean it is only one of the most disgusting attacks on freedom of press and the 1st amendment a governor of a state has ever supported. So it makes sense you'd support it.

How is willful ignorance no longer being a defense for defamation a “disgusting attack on freedom of the press?”

 

[Slartibartfast]

So it sounds like DeSantis wants to make it easier to file SLAPP suits when reporters report on things he doesn't want to hear.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Lol... Man you talk about something that can come back and bite the far right in the ass?... Lol

 

[Napoleon]

Lol... Man you talk about something that can come back and bite the far right in the ass?... Lol

Yeah, the liberals on this board should be dancing in the street.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

How is willful ignorance no longer being a defense for defamation a “disgusting attack on freedom of the press?”

A homeowner gets angry at a county commission over a zoning dispute and writes a Facebook post accusing a local buildings official of being in the pocket of developers.
A right-wing broadcaster criticizing border policies accuses the secretary of homeland security of being a traitor.
A parent upset about the removal of a gay-themed book from library shelves goes to a school board meeting and calls the board chair a bigot and a homophobe.
All three are examples of Americans engaging in clamorous but perfectly legal speech about public figures that is broadly protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a case that dates back nearly 60 years, ruled that even if that speech might be damaging or include errors, it should generally be protected against claims of libel and slander. All three would lose that protection — and be subject to ruinous defamation lawsuits — under a bill that is moving through the Florida House and is based on longstanding goals of Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The law as it is written would literally have stopped watergate from being reported on. Anything that is a "rumor" or from an anonymous source would be "slander". Some of the most important investigative journalism has been from anonymous sources.

This law is so ridiculous calling someone like DeSantis a homophobe or an authoritarian would literally be "slander" because you can't prove it. Hell, technically saying Biden is a traitor who stole the election would be basically illegal if this was a federal law. Lmao.

It is so stupid on it's face only you'd almost have to forcibly shut your brain down and not think about it to fail to understand how it is bad.

 

[Napoleon]

The law as it is written would literally have stopped watergate from being reported on. Anything that is a "rumor" or from an anonymous source would be "slander". Some of the most important investigative journalism has been from anonymous sources.

This law is so ridiculous calling someone like DeSantis a homophobe or an authoritarian would literally be "slander" because you can't prove it. Hell, technically saying Biden is a traitor who stole the election would be basically illegal if this was a federal law. Lmao.

It is so stupid on it's face only you'd almost have to forcibly shut your brain down and not think about it to fail to understand how it is bad.

The First Amendment was not intended for the press to publish defamatory material and hide behind their own refusal to vet the information. It’s not investigative journalism if you just print whatever some anonymous rando tells you and make no effort to determine the veracity first.

 

[Felis Leo]

I have seen where liberal in california think free speech should be limited especially in the area of politics

You have, A Linoge? Where?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Yeah, the liberals on this board should be dancing in the street.

It would change the definition of actual malice to include any allegation that is “inherently improbable” — an impossibly vague standard — or that is based on what it calls an “unverified” statement by an anonymous source. In fact, it says that all anonymous statements, a crucial tool for investigative reporting, are “presumptively false” for the purposes of a defamation case.

If this was federal law Fox news would be shut down within the week. Virtually any negative statement Tucker Carlson makes would be open to a legitimate slander lawsuit. Any claim about election fraud? Slander. Calling Biden incompetent? Can you prove that? Slander.

Wanna know the best part?

The bill goes much further than this attempt to hobble the press. It makes it clear that the new defamation rules would also apply to any single “utterance on the internet,” which could mean a tweet or a Facebook post written by anyone, or “any one presentation to an audience,” which could include statements made at school board hearings and other public meetings.

So, let's pretend this law was in effect.

Biden was an old school racist Democrat.

I see here you are claiming Biden is racist. I am suing you for slander and automatically win the case because with how the law is written it is impossible to prove someone is racist.

So you still support this law, knowing that?

 

[Napoleon]

So you still support this law, knowing that?

Yep.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

The First Amendment was not intended for the press to publish defamatory material and hide behind their own refusal to vet the information. It’s not investigative journalism if you just print whatever some anonymous rando tells you and make no effort to determine the veracity first.

I genuinely cannot tell if you are being maliciously stupid or if you actually cannot understand how devastating this bill is.

The bill applies to comments made online, you called Biden racist and by the wording of the bill cannot prove he is and automatically lose any defamation case.

The penalty for calling someone a bigot would be a minimum of $35,000.

Conservatives would be broke within the week, Fox News would be off the air by the end of the day the law went into effect. It is a comically bad bill. Cartoonish even. I cannot fathom a person in good faith defending this.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Yep.

If this was federal law, just based on comments you have made on this forum (which applies to this bill), you'd be open the hundreds of thousand of dollars worth of defamation lawsuits that you have no chance of winning based on statements you have made.

 

[Napoleon]

I genuinely cannot tell if you are being maliciously stupid or if you actually cannot understand how devastating this bill is.

The bill applies to comments made online, you called Biden racist and by the wording of the bill cannot prove he is and automatically lose any defamation case.

Under the bill, all I have to prove is that I have a reasonable basis to conclude that and did the due diligence. Biden’s public record as a segregationist suffices.

 

[reflechissez]

Under the bill, all I have to prove is that I have a reasonable basis to conclude that and did the due diligence. Biden’s public record as a segregationist suffices.

nah

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Under the bill, all I have to prove is that I have a reasonable basis to conclude that and did the due diligence. Biden’s public record as a segregationist suffices.

This is not what the bills do. I don't know where you came up with any of this.

 

[reflechissez]

This is not what the bills do. I don't know where you came up with any of this.

He doesn't either.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Under the bill, all I have to prove is that I have a reasonable basis to conclude that and did the due diligence. Biden’s public record as a segregationist suffices.

It wouldn't, because it actually has special protections in the bill that basically make it impossible to call any public figure a bigot.

But if you don't agree that's how the bill functions, what about something like birtherism? You know, the theory Obama isn't a US citizen or something. Trump would have another bankruptcy under his belt. And again, like half of conservative media would be under water as well just for that.

 

[Phys251]

DeSantis wants to roll back press freedoms — with an eye toward overturning Supreme Court ruling​

DeSantis wants to roll back press freedoms — with an eye toward overturning Supreme Court ruling

Florida Republicans are seeking to weaken laws protecting journalists.

www.politico.com

Florida Is Trying to Take Away the American Right to Speak Freely​

Opinion | Florida Is Trying to Take Away the American Right to Speak Freely (Published 2023)

There’s still time for state lawmakers to reject the crude pandering of a bill that seeks to overturn a bulwark of First Amendment law.

www.nytimes.com

Florida Takes Aim at the First Amendment​

Florida Takes Aim at the First Amendment

Two bills in the Republican-controlled state legislature propose radical alteration to libel laws.

www.newyorker.com

More evidence that DeathSantis wants to become a dictator. Righties, of course, will back him up.

 

[AZRWinger]

So it sounds like DeSantis wants to make it easier to file SLAPP suits when reporters report on things he doesn't want to hear.

No, the reform is to allow the prevailing party in defamation lawsuits to collect legal fees from the lloser. For example, under current law a newspaper with a law firm on retainer can lose the initial defamation lawsuit but simply wear down the other party on appeal because the plantiff can't afford more legal fees.

There is nothing in the legislation that precludes publication of any story. It just sets out a level playing field for suing media organizations that defaming their targets.

 

[AZRWinger]

It wouldn't, because it actually has special protections in the bill that basically make it impossible to call any public figure a bigot.

But if you don't agree that's how the bill functions, what about something like birtherism? You know, the theory Obama isn't a US citizen or something. Trump would have another bankruptcy under his belt. And again, like half of conservative media would be under water as well just for that.

I didn't see the text of the bill contained in the links. Nothing I could see enjoins media from calling a public figure a bigot.

Bad example, Trump’s attorneys would just cite Hillary Clinton's campaign as the actual source of the rumor.

 

[Loulit01]

Those bills pass and you can wave bye-bye to Hate Radio in Florida.-

 

[Blue Dog]

Speaking as a more traditional conservative, I find these bills odious.