United States HB 991 "Empower Bigots" Bill in Florida

[Bear Ribs]

House Bill 991 (2023) - The Florida Senate

www.flsenate.gov

Synopisis:
Defamation, False Light, and Unauthorized Publication of Name or Likenesses; Provides that journalist's privilege does not apply to defamation claims when defendant is professional journalist or media entity; revises provisions concerning venue for certain actions; provides for attorney fees & costs to prevailing plaintiffs in certain actions; specifies certain persons may not be considered public figures; provides certain allegations are defamatory per se; provides statutory damages to prevailing plaintiffs who are subject of such allegations; creates presumption that statement by anonymous source is presumptively false; provides public figure does not need to show actual malice to prevail in defamation action.

HB991 is aimed at curbing defamation and removes a number of defenses, to my reading it looks more like trying to crack down on Sandmann style shenanigans. From my own reading of it the big ones are:

It removes the "Actual Malice" clause that makes it so ridiculously hard to prove libel in most states, since proving actual malice means reading the minds of the media owner. This will make curbing abuses by Mainstream Media easier because now you only have to prove they lied about you and that their lies are something a reasonable person wouldn't want to be said about them.

Anonymous Sources are presumptively false. Mainstream Media has to be able to present a real source, at least to the court, rather than claiming they know a source but can't name or describe them. This obviously ties directly into the above point as it removes a potential abuse point of anonymous sources being cited, safe from being scrutinized or their story being dissected for falsehoods.

If a private individual is put in the spotlight in a negative way, Media has to be sure they can back up the claims. (This is what makes me think this is Sandmann inspired).

Calling somebody a bigot, transphobe, racist, etc. is defamation and you need to be able to prove a person is an actual bigot and didn't, f'rex, just play Hogwarts Legacy or made the OK sign in a selfie 25 years ago.

Needless to say, certain people are losing their minds. In the same flavor as the Don't Say Gay bill, this one's being called the Empower Bigots bill. Here's one finely crafted bit of misinformation:



She removed the line There are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of a report when: to make it look like it says people aren't allowed to use the truth as a defense in LGBTQ cases rather than the bill emphasizing the opposite and confirming that Truth is a valid defense.

 

[S'task]

. . . This is a direct shot across the bow of New York Times v Sullivan and if passed WILL end up in a Supreme Court case.

Which given the makeup of the court and many of it's members opinion of that case means there's a good chance of the NATIONAL actual malice standard being overturned.

This would be a... game changer, a really massive one.

 

[Skallagrim]

This is absolutely chilling AWESOME.

I love it. Better yet would be to just outright ban "anonymous sources" altogether. If you're going to publish an accusion against a named (or easily idenifiable) person, I strongly feel that it must be done "with a raised visor". That is a requirement of honour. Anything else is the mark of a criminal coward. Unfortunately, I don't think that'll ever get passed...

 

[The Original Sixth]

Would like to see a federal version of this. With the advancements of social media, defamation/libel has become a serious issue. Private citizens can no longer make jokes or express opinions without political/social rivals using it as slander to tar and feather them. Introducing this sort of standard would give serious repercussions to both news media groups/journalists who like to leverage it as a political weapon and trolls/social climbers who use it as ammunition.

. . . This is a direct shot across the bow of New York Times v Sullivan and if passed WILL end up in a Supreme Court case.

Which given the makeup of the court and many of it's members opinion of that case means there's a good chance of the NATIONAL actual malice standard being overturned.

This would be a... game changer, a really massive one.

That may not necessarily be the case. SCOTUS may simply rule that it is legal for Florida to specifically do away with the "intent of malice". However, if we see significant positive results from this sort of legislation in Florida, I would expect that many other states...especially red states, begin to adopt it. Blue states may follow if it proves an effective means of control.

 

[S'task]

This is absolutely chilling AWESOME.

I love it. Better yet would be to just outright ban "anonymous sources" altogether. If you're going to publish an accusion against a named (or easily idenifiable) person, I strongly feel that it must be done "with a raised visor". That is a requirement of honour. Anything else is the mark of a criminal coward. Unfortunately, I don't think that'll ever get passed...

While I understand where you're coming from there is use for anonymous sources with journalism, especially when journalist are investigating wrongdoing by government, big businesses, or organized crime actors. In those cases it protects the whistleblowers and while that CAN be abused (as was often done under the Trump admin), in the long history of reporting I think the balance tends to be that offering some degree of anonymity is good.

 

[S'task]

That may not necessarily be the case. SCOTUS may simply rule that it is legal for Florida to specifically do away with the "intent of malice". However, if we see significant positive results from this sort of legislation in Florida, I would expect that many other states...especially red states, begin to adopt it. Blue states may follow if it proves an effective means of control.

Constitutional Law does not work that way. There's no carving out single state exceptions like that to prior precedent. Basically, once it goes for Florida, it goes for EVERY state that lacks an explicit "actual malice" standard in their law.

 

[Bear Ribs]

While I understand where you're coming from there is use for anonymous sources with journalism, especially when journalist are investigating wrongdoing by government, big businesses, or organized crime actors. In those cases it protects the whistleblowers and while that CAN be abused (as was often done under the Trump admin), in the long history of reporting I think the balance tends to be that offering some degree of anonymity is good.

I would feel more comfortable if anonymous sources are allowed in reporting, however in a lawsuit said source must be presented to the judge and counsel to give testimony privately, penalties for breaking said privacy are severe, and a carveout in the Truth in Information Act is added to ensure nobody can force the government to give up the name of the source.

Because yeah, there's too many cases where the potential whistleblower needs to maintain their anonymity from bad actors who will absolutely retaliate against them.

 

[Skallagrim]

While I understand where you're coming from there is use for anonymous sources with journalism, especially when journalist are investigating wrongdoing by government, big businesses, or organized crime actors. In those cases it protects the whistleblowers and while that CAN be abused (as was often done under the Trump admin), in the long history of reporting I think the balance tends to be that offering some degree of anonymity is good.

I would feel more comfortable if anonymous sources are allowed in reporting, however in a lawsuit said source must be presented to the judge and counsel to give testimony privately, penalties for breaking said privacy are severe, and a carveout in the Truth in Information Act is added to ensure nobody can force the government to give up the name of the source.

Because yeah, there's too many cases where the potential whistleblower needs to maintain their anonymity from bad actors who will absolutely retaliate against them.

I understand the arguments, and see the validity. What @Bear Ribs proposes would presumably work out about as well as we might desire, and is thus ultimately the outcome to aim for, I suppose.

My own feelings towards the so-called "free" press have soured, however, and will not soon recover. Too often have they abused their special protections to viciously attack the innocent. If there is any way in which those privileges can be stripped, I'll support it. There are (or at least: have been) instances where anonymous sources were a good thing, but frankly: I see the concept of a power in and of itself. A power that has been abused. And a power that is clearly vulnerable to strucural abuse is a power I'd rather see abolished.

If what @Bear Ribs proposes can be implemented, and is then shown to address the issue satisfactorily, however, I'd certainly be content with that, and leave the matter to rest.

 

[Zyobot]

Personally, I have little confidence in any legislature’s ability to effectively pass sweeping bills — or even ensure good ones that have already been passed remain good, really.

Maybe I’ve been too focused on Congress, but if they’re any indication, then we should expect whatever bills get introduced to be amended to Hell with all sorts of riders and rewordings of the original text that’d make private citizens who originally supported it tear their hair out, if they knew how monstrous they became. In which case, I have serious doubts that — however theoretically sensible what @Bear Ribs proposed is — that it’d ever get implemented correctly or not be subject to retroactive “stealth revisions” when no one’s looking. That has, after all, been the case more than once already.

 

[Morphic Tide]

...Wait, if Florida's legislature passes this bill, couldn't the politicians there immediately start suing any company that shows a whiff of personal attack in lying their ass off about what's in the bill?

 

[hyperspacewizard]

...Wait, if Florida's legislature passes this bill, couldn't the politicians there immediately start suing any company that shows a whiff of personal attack in lying their ass off about what's in the bill?

I would think only if they specifically targeted an actual person and lied about them such as calling them a bigot or racist for supporting the bill etc. lying or being “mistaken” wouldn’t be effectived as long as it was about the bill. Maybe could be wrong?

 

[Sergeant Foley]

House Bill 991 (2023) - The Florida Senate

www.flsenate.gov

Synopisis:
Defamation, False Light, and Unauthorized Publication of Name or Likenesses; Provides that journalist's privilege does not apply to defamation claims when defendant is professional journalist or media entity; revises provisions concerning venue for certain actions; provides for attorney fees & costs to prevailing plaintiffs in certain actions; specifies certain persons may not be considered public figures; provides certain allegations are defamatory per se; provides statutory damages to prevailing plaintiffs who are subject of such allegations; creates presumption that statement by anonymous source is presumptively false; provides public figure does not need to show actual malice to prevail in defamation action.

HB991 is aimed at curbing defamation and removes a number of defenses, to my reading it looks more like trying to crack down on Sandmann style shenanigans. From my own reading of it the big ones are:

It removes the "Actual Malice" clause that makes it so ridiculously hard to prove libel in most states, since proving actual malice means reading the minds of the media owner. This will make curbing abuses by Mainstream Media easier because now you only have to prove they lied about you and that their lies are something a reasonable person wouldn't want to be said about them.

Anonymous Sources are presumptively false. Mainstream Media has to be able to present a real source, at least to the court, rather than claiming they know a source but can't name or describe them. This obviously ties directly into the above point as it removes a potential abuse point of anonymous sources being cited, safe from being scrutinized or their story being dissected for falsehoods.

If a private individual is put in the spotlight in a negative way, Media has to be sure they can back up the claims. (This is what makes me think this is Sandmann inspired).

Calling somebody a bigot, transphobe, racist, etc. is defamation and you need to be able to prove a person is an actual bigot and didn't, f'rex, just play Hogwarts Legacy or made the OK sign in a selfie 25 years ago.

Needless to say, certain people are losing their minds. In the same flavor as the Don't Say Gay bill, this one's being called the Empower Bigots bill. Here's one finely crafted bit of misinformation:



She removed the line There are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of a report when: to make it look like it says people aren't allowed to use the truth as a defense in LGBTQ cases rather than the bill emphasizing the opposite and confirming that Truth is a valid defense.

The Karen Strategy is still breathing since Nixon perfected it.