Florida Bill Aids Left-Wing Groups in Suing Conservative Media
Proposed Florida Defamation Legislation: A Threat to Free Speech and Conservative Media
Florida is facing a dangerous threat to free speech and conservative media with the proposed defamation legislation. If passed, HB 757 would make it easier for leftwing lawyers to sue conservative media outlets into oblivion and hinder the ability of anonymous sources to come forward with vital information.
The bill, as reported by the Tallahassee Democrat, would establish a presumption that anyone publishing a false statement based on an anonymous source acted with “actual malice,” a significant legal hurdle for public figures in defamation lawsuits.
At the moment, the sponsor of the House bill, Rep. Alex Andrade, has not responded to The Federalist’s request for comment.
Proving “actual malice” is a challenging task for public figures in libel cases. It requires demonstrating that the defendant knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
If the proposed legislation becomes law, Florida courts will be required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether potentially libelous content is presented as a statement of fact or an opinion.
HB 757 would allow defamation lawsuits to be filed in any county across the state for online content and in any county where the defamatory material was accessed for radio or television broadcasts. The bill also mandates the permanent removal of defamatory content from the internet within 10 days of notification to the publisher.
In Florida, libel is considered a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by fines and jail time.
On the surface, HB 757 may seem like an opportunity for conservatives to hold legacy media accountable for their lies and mistreatment of Republican officials. However, it could have unintended consequences. Lowering the standard of “actual malice” could lead to more accountability, but it may also chill free speech and harm conservative media.
The bill creates a presumption of “actual malice” if a public figure plaintiff can prove that a published statement is false and relied on an anonymous source. This could potentially discourage truthful anonymous sourcing.
The left has a history of using lawfare to silence their opponents. Christians, entrepreneurs, and even our republican form of government have all been targeted through litigation. Allowing the left’s nonprofit apparatus to exploit anonymously sourced information could tie conservative media in legal battles, draining their resources.
Furthermore, HB 757 heavily favors well-funded plaintiffs by eliminating the requirement for unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay the defendant’s legal costs. It also allows forum shopping, enabling plaintiffs to choose politically friendly venues.
The bill is likely to discourage anonymous sources from coming forward. In defamation suits involving public figures, courts can compel journalists and publishers to disclose the identity of anonymous sources if specific criteria are met. Shield laws in Florida protect journalists, but they are not absolute. If revealing the source becomes crucial to the plaintiff’s case, anonymity can be compromised.
Under these circumstances, why would a whistleblower or anonymous source risk coming forward? HB 757 puts those fighting corruption and injustice at risk by jeopardizing anonymous sourcing and exposing non-legacy media to lawfare.
In what ways does the expanded jurisdiction for defamation lawsuits under HB 757 pose a threat to conservative media outlets and potentially lead to biased outcomes
Es that undermine the principles of free speech and hinder the ability of media outlets to uncover the truth.
One of the major concerns with HB 757 is its potential impact on anonymous sources. Whistleblowers, informants, and insiders play a crucial role in exposing corruption and wrongdoing. By establishing a presumption of “actual malice” for publishing information based on anonymous sources, this legislation would discourage individuals from coming forward with vital information. Fear of being sued and facing legal consequences would silence potential sources, ultimately allowing misconduct and corruption to go unchecked.
Furthermore, the bill’s requirement for an evidentiary hearing to differentiate between statements of fact and opinion could hinder journalistic expression. Journalism often involves the interpretation and analysis of facts, which may be presented as opinions. By subjecting such expressions to legal scrutiny, the legislation risks creating a chilling effect on the media’s ability to provide insight, analysis, and commentary on important issues.
Additionally, HB 757 expands the jurisdiction for defamation lawsuits, allowing them to be filed in any county across the state for online content and in any county where defamatory material was accessed for radio or television broadcasts. This provision effectively enables forum shopping, where plaintiffs can choose the most favorable jurisdiction for their case, potentially leading to a bias against conservative media outlets.
The bill also mandates the permanent removal of defamatory content from the internet within 10 days of notification to the publisher. While it is important to address false and harmful information, this provision raises concerns about censorship and the potential abuse of power. The subjective determination of what constitutes defamatory content could be used to suppress dissenting voices and stifle legitimate criticism of public figures.
Despite the potential to hold legacy media accountable for their actions, HB 757 poses a significant threat to free speech and conservative media outlets. By making it easier for defamation lawsuits to be filed and imposing burdensome requirements, this legislation could have a chilling effect on journalism and hinder the public’s access to important information. It is crucial to protect the principles of free speech and ensure that media outlets can continue to fulfill their vital role in our democracy.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
