- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,452
- Likes
- 146,889
- Points
- 115
And get a lot of dope smuggled there.
Politics The Florida GOP
- Thread starter Voodoo
- Start date
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
And get a lot of dope smuggled there.
riverman
Writing Team
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2013
- Messages
- 68,491
- Likes
- 67,631
- Points
- 113
I visited Florida when I was about 9 years old when my uncle and aunt lived in Key West.....it was cool in the early 60s and probably still is but that has nothing to do with the new Florida and the anti civil rights govt that is entrenced there....I was in Nicaragua when it was nice too...today...not so nice.
Shogun X
Ex El Presidente
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2022
- Messages
- 723
- Likes
- 396
- Points
- 63
Who cares, just go to the tourist areas, pretend its Mexico. Like I would give a fuck for any of the cookie cutter suburban hell that's out there in Florida. I'd imagine most of the state is trailer trash and swamp hicks, just go to the parts that aren't.
They did have great beaches and warm water, you really can't swim much in the Pacific Ocean in California, its way too cold/polluted.
HomerLovesKoolAid
I have a well-known member.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2010
- Messages
- 7,352
- Likes
- 7,513
- Points
- 113
The Florida dopes are key.
Voodoo
An American hero
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,874
- Likes
- 2,732
- Points
- 113
Because the Democratic party is becoming younger, and more diverse. If I want to go into politics in Florida, I would have to register as a Republican, which I am not. Look at what happened with Joe Crowley and AOC, he was an old white dude who held that seat for like 30 years, and was beat by a young woman of color. Pretty much was a microcosm of the current state of the Democratic zeitgeist.
riverman
Writing Team
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2013
- Messages
- 68,491
- Likes
- 67,631
- Points
- 113
I care where I invest my expendable income....I've never been a 'tourist" in my travels..whatever floats your boat bro...you're welcome to it. I know lots of warm places to swim without going to Florida..I'd fly to Phuket long before I'd go to Florida
Strenuus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 50,847
- Likes
- 36,223
- Points
- 113
Doesn't matter.
Strenuus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 50,847
- Likes
- 36,223
- Points
- 113
Right? Our tourist dollars go into the state. Hell no.
Shogun X
Ex El Presidente
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2022
- Messages
- 723
- Likes
- 396
- Points
- 63
They tried young and diverse and ended up with a crackhead last time around.
Shogun X
Ex El Presidente
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2022
- Messages
- 723
- Likes
- 396
- Points
- 63
Hmmmm......
Strenuus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 50,847
- Likes
- 36,223
- Points
- 113
They should dissolve into something else then. Which will probably happen in the next twenty years.
The way I look at it, short term with social media they can dupe idiots. But the younger generation called them on their bullshit and the older people will pass away, leaving the people who know they are saying BS, who won't vote for people like this.
I know a lot of people who have broken away from their families over this, so long term even generations will not vote like their families and eventually it's either go back to actually trying to help the country or GTFO. This circus they have will stop travelling eventually. And they will die out.
It can't happen soon enough. You don't try to subvert votes if you think you can get enough votes. There's no counterarguments to that.
ABM
Happily Married In Music City, USA!
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 31,865
- Likes
- 5,785
- Points
- 113
You've already posted this link in the past. Try reading the Blue Swell reviews pertaining to our rental. We have a great relationship with them and they take great care of our place. They're also getting it solidly rented out, which, obviously, is very important. We've reviewed and met with other vacation management companies but see no reason to make any changes at this point. That all said, this is a super rental in a great location. We get consistent 5-star reviews so we're happy campers, as it were.
VRBO --> https://www.vrbo.com/1651049?adultsCount=2&noDates=true
Last edited:
Voodoo
An American hero
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,874
- Likes
- 2,732
- Points
- 113
It reminds me of apartheid in South Africa, eventually it will end because it is unsustainable.
Voodoo
An American hero
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,874
- Likes
- 2,732
- Points
- 113
Yes and that doesn't dispute my point, Gillum got 49.2% to DeSantis' 49.6% in 2018. In 2022 DeSantis got 59.4% and Crist got 40%. If you squint just right, you'll notice that the race was much closer for the young diverse crackhead than it was for the old white guy.
As is often said, Democrats need to fall in love with their candidate (e.g. see Obama, or Clinton) in order to get motivated to vote. Charlie Crist just isn't going to get it done, and neither is someone like Nikki Fried. Dems need a young charismatic person of color to stand a chance in Florida, no some boring middle aged white woman.
riverman
Writing Team
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2013
- Messages
- 68,491
- Likes
- 67,631
- Points
- 113
Or gutting the libraries....the war on education and the teaching of civil rights history
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,452
- Likes
- 146,889
- Points
- 115
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,452
- Likes
- 146,889
- Points
- 115
Florida bill would require bloggers who write about governor to register with the state
TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — Florida Sen. Jason Brodeur (R-Lake Mary) wants bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and other members of the Florida executive cabinet or legislature to register with the state or face fines.
Brodeur’s proposal, Senate Bill 1316: Information Dissemination, would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.
In the bill, Brodeur wrote that those who write “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” about “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.
If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published.
For blog posts that “concern an elected member of the legislature” or “an officer of the executive branch,” monthly reports must disclose the amount of compensation received for the coverage, rounded to the nearest $10 value.
If compensation is paid for a series of posts or for a specific amount of time, the blogger would be required to disclose the total amount to be received, upon publication of the first post in said series or timeframe.
Additional compensation must be disclosed later on.
Failure to file these disclosures or register with state officials, if the bill passes, would lead to daily fines for the bloggers, with a maximum amount per report, not per writer, of $2,500. The per-day fine is $25 per report for each day it’s late.
The bill also requires that bloggers file notices of failure to file a timely report the same way that lobbyists file their disclosures and reports on assessed fines. Fines must be paid within 30 days of payment notice, unless an appeal is filed with the appropriate office. Fine payments must be deposited into the Legislative Lobbyist Registration Trust Fund if it concerns an elected member of the legislature.
For writing about members of the executive branch, fines would be made payable to the Executive Branch Lobby Registration Trust Fund or, if it concerns both groups, the fine may be paid to both related trust funds in equal amounts.
Explicitly, the blogger rule would not apply to newspapers or similar publications, under Brodeur’s proposed legislation.
In additional to the blogger regulations, the bill also removes provisions of state statutes to require judicial notices of sales to be published on publicly accessible websites, and specifies that a government agency can publish legally required advertisements and public notices on county sites if the cost is not paid by or recovered from an individual.
Should the bill pass, it would take effect immediately upon approval.
https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/...te-about-governor-to-register-with-the-state/
TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — Florida Sen. Jason Brodeur (R-Lake Mary) wants bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and other members of the Florida executive cabinet or legislature to register with the state or face fines.
Brodeur’s proposal, Senate Bill 1316: Information Dissemination, would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.
In the bill, Brodeur wrote that those who write “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” about “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.
If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published.
For blog posts that “concern an elected member of the legislature” or “an officer of the executive branch,” monthly reports must disclose the amount of compensation received for the coverage, rounded to the nearest $10 value.
If compensation is paid for a series of posts or for a specific amount of time, the blogger would be required to disclose the total amount to be received, upon publication of the first post in said series or timeframe.
Additional compensation must be disclosed later on.
Failure to file these disclosures or register with state officials, if the bill passes, would lead to daily fines for the bloggers, with a maximum amount per report, not per writer, of $2,500. The per-day fine is $25 per report for each day it’s late.
The bill also requires that bloggers file notices of failure to file a timely report the same way that lobbyists file their disclosures and reports on assessed fines. Fines must be paid within 30 days of payment notice, unless an appeal is filed with the appropriate office. Fine payments must be deposited into the Legislative Lobbyist Registration Trust Fund if it concerns an elected member of the legislature.
For writing about members of the executive branch, fines would be made payable to the Executive Branch Lobby Registration Trust Fund or, if it concerns both groups, the fine may be paid to both related trust funds in equal amounts.
Explicitly, the blogger rule would not apply to newspapers or similar publications, under Brodeur’s proposed legislation.
In additional to the blogger regulations, the bill also removes provisions of state statutes to require judicial notices of sales to be published on publicly accessible websites, and specifies that a government agency can publish legally required advertisements and public notices on county sites if the cost is not paid by or recovered from an individual.
Should the bill pass, it would take effect immediately upon approval.
https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/...te-about-governor-to-register-with-the-state/
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,452
- Likes
- 146,889
- Points
- 115
U.S. Court: Bloggers Are Journalists
Even when they're libeling you
One of the great questions of our time came closer to resolution last week, when a federal court ruled that bloggers are journalists—at least when it comes to their First Amendment rights.
The Ninth Circuit ruled as such on Friday in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox, a complicated case first decided in 2011. The court found that even though someone might not write for the “institutional press,” they’re entitled to all the protections the Constitution grants journalists.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/01/us-court-bloggers-are-journalists/283225/
...
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Shaboid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 10,295
- Likes
- 13,636
- Points
- 113
Is this forum considered blogging? If so, president desantis may come for all of us one day.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,452
- Likes
- 146,889
- Points
- 115
If that law passes it would only affect one person in this forum since they just posted the address of the house they own in Florida in this very thread.
https://www.blueswell.com/vacation-rentals/202-sandyshore-dr-two-if-sea
Shogun X
Ex El Presidente
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2022
- Messages
- 723
- Likes
- 396
- Points
- 63
Its owned by A2M Ventures, LLC.
ABM
Happily Married In Music City, USA!
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 31,865
- Likes
- 5,785
- Points
- 113
Nonetheless, we're very happy with their services. We demand a lot from our management companies and are very hands-on and communicative. I believe our ur many 5-star ratings are reflective of that. We rely 100% on Blue Swell to book our place. We're completely hands-off in that regard. They partner with VRBO, and other such services, to help market and book the place.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,452
- Likes
- 146,889
- Points
- 115
Here’s How Florida Could Become the Capital of Weaponized Libel Suits
Florida’s new House Bill 991 proposes a laundry list of legal changes that would make it easier for plaintiffs to bring and win defamation cases. It would also weaponize the law to allow the powerful to silence their critics.
The bill’s sponsor makes no secret that the intended target of this bill is the news media. And given the widespread public dissatisfaction with the media, this bill promises to be popular, and easily spun by politicians as a way of making the media accountable.
But it isn’t just irresponsible media actors that get hit with defamation actions. Whether we’re using Twitter, TikTok, Substack, or any other self-publishing platform, we’re all publishers now. That should make us all cautious about defamation law reforms that strongly tilt to one side.
Ron DeSantis’ Anti-Free Speech Crusade Would Cancel Fox News
A close look at the proposed bill shows that it is excessively lopsided in favor of plaintiffs.
H.B. 991 proposes to tinker with almost 60 years of Supreme Court precedent defining First Amendment constraints on state defamation law. Until the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, state defamation tilted heavily toward plaintiffs, with falsity and damages presumed and no requirement of fault.
During the civil rights movement, Southern officials developed a cynical strategy of deploying defamation liability to stifle coverage of the civil rights struggle. “Outsider” newspapers and television stations were faced with an eye-popping $300 million—almost $3 billion today—in potential defamation liability.
Alabama juries and courts awarded the largest libel verdict in the state’s history against the Times. The paper’s supposed offense? Publishing a fundraising appeal that criticized Southern police for suppressing African American student protesters and arresting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
The story got minor details wrong. Yet, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s finding that the police commissioner—who hadn’t even been identified by name in the article—had been defamed by inaccuracies regarding how many times Dr. King had been arrested (four rather than seven); where police had been positioned at a student protest; whether they padlocked a dining hall; and what song student protesters had sung (“The Star Spangled Banner” versus “My Country ’Tis of Thee.”)
In Sullivan, the Supreme Court explained that the First Amendment prevents government officials from weaponizing defamation cases to silence their critics. It held that critics of government officials can’t be held liable for defamation simply for publishing false and defamatory statements about them—unless they knew or recklessly disregarded the falsity of the reputation-damaging facts they published.
Later cases extended this fault standard, known as “actual malice,” to public figures as well—people we might today call “influencers.” The Supreme Court drew a different line for defamation victims who are not as powerful, but are nonetheless involved in matters of public concern.
These special “fault standards,” along with other constitutionally based protections, represent the court’s careful balancing of the important interests in reputation and free expression. States are free to provide more protection for free expression, but they aren’t free to provide less.
A number of the provisions in H.B. 991 seem to do just that. In practice, the bill seems custom-made to increase the legal and financial penalties for defamation defendants, while expanding the universe of possible claims that may be levied against an expanded cross-section of American media.
Not only does the statute impose “limitations on judicial determination of a public figure,” but it also redefines actual malice to require a factfinder to infer actual malice under a variety of circumstances. It treats the reporting of any statement by an anonymous source as presumptively false, and it awards plaintiffs attorneys’ fees when they prevail under the statute’s relaxed standards.
H.B. 991 also provides an opportunity for plaintiffs’ lawyers to use the courts to intimidate defendants by layering multiple claims and forcing defendants to bear greater and greater legal expenses. For example, the new bill recognizes “false light invasion of privacy”—a tort that lets someone recover damages when the media mischaracterizes their identities or actions in an offensive way. The Florida Supreme Court has largely rejected this tort (as have many other states), in part because the vagueness of that standard will surely chill speech.
Some of the bill’s provisions are likely to be held unconstitutional under current law. The bill’s sponsor has denied that a central motivation for the bill is to encourage the Supreme Court to revisit the constitutional limits on defamation actions, but since Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have expressed a desire to reconsider the doctrine, this bill might give the Supreme Court the vehicle it needs.
The Florida bill—and those who would radically tilt First Amendment protections against the media and other speakers—ignores the threat that weaponized defamation suits pose not just to the media, but to us all.
Citizens in a democracy should be free to share their views—even if caustic and intemperate—on matters that affect us all. When it comes to criticism of the powerful, James Madison (and the Sullivan court) were right that we need to allow some breathing space for free speech and press, because negligent errors are inevitable.
The actual malice standard does not eliminate media liability for false statements. Changes to defamation law should come through nuanced deliberation and careful analysis of costs and benefits.
To be sure, the internet and social media have changed public discourse, and not always for the better. Hyperbole and exaggeration diffuse into every facet of public life. Speakers take advantage of social media virality to pass on hyperpartisan conspiracist ideas untethered from facts. Instead of bringing us together, our communication spaces are exacerbating tribalism.
Such social fault lines can make it tempting to punish those with whom we disagree. But making it easier for plaintiffs to weaponize defamation law is not the answer.
Weaponized defamation actions are censorship, pure and simple. It was true when the Supreme Court decided Sullivan, and it is still true now.
https://news.yahoo.com/florida-could-become-capital-weaponized-094017059.html
Florida’s new House Bill 991 proposes a laundry list of legal changes that would make it easier for plaintiffs to bring and win defamation cases. It would also weaponize the law to allow the powerful to silence their critics.
The bill’s sponsor makes no secret that the intended target of this bill is the news media. And given the widespread public dissatisfaction with the media, this bill promises to be popular, and easily spun by politicians as a way of making the media accountable.
But it isn’t just irresponsible media actors that get hit with defamation actions. Whether we’re using Twitter, TikTok, Substack, or any other self-publishing platform, we’re all publishers now. That should make us all cautious about defamation law reforms that strongly tilt to one side.
Ron DeSantis’ Anti-Free Speech Crusade Would Cancel Fox News
A close look at the proposed bill shows that it is excessively lopsided in favor of plaintiffs.
H.B. 991 proposes to tinker with almost 60 years of Supreme Court precedent defining First Amendment constraints on state defamation law. Until the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, state defamation tilted heavily toward plaintiffs, with falsity and damages presumed and no requirement of fault.
During the civil rights movement, Southern officials developed a cynical strategy of deploying defamation liability to stifle coverage of the civil rights struggle. “Outsider” newspapers and television stations were faced with an eye-popping $300 million—almost $3 billion today—in potential defamation liability.
Alabama juries and courts awarded the largest libel verdict in the state’s history against the Times. The paper’s supposed offense? Publishing a fundraising appeal that criticized Southern police for suppressing African American student protesters and arresting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
The story got minor details wrong. Yet, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s finding that the police commissioner—who hadn’t even been identified by name in the article—had been defamed by inaccuracies regarding how many times Dr. King had been arrested (four rather than seven); where police had been positioned at a student protest; whether they padlocked a dining hall; and what song student protesters had sung (“The Star Spangled Banner” versus “My Country ’Tis of Thee.”)
In Sullivan, the Supreme Court explained that the First Amendment prevents government officials from weaponizing defamation cases to silence their critics. It held that critics of government officials can’t be held liable for defamation simply for publishing false and defamatory statements about them—unless they knew or recklessly disregarded the falsity of the reputation-damaging facts they published.
Later cases extended this fault standard, known as “actual malice,” to public figures as well—people we might today call “influencers.” The Supreme Court drew a different line for defamation victims who are not as powerful, but are nonetheless involved in matters of public concern.
These special “fault standards,” along with other constitutionally based protections, represent the court’s careful balancing of the important interests in reputation and free expression. States are free to provide more protection for free expression, but they aren’t free to provide less.
A number of the provisions in H.B. 991 seem to do just that. In practice, the bill seems custom-made to increase the legal and financial penalties for defamation defendants, while expanding the universe of possible claims that may be levied against an expanded cross-section of American media.
Not only does the statute impose “limitations on judicial determination of a public figure,” but it also redefines actual malice to require a factfinder to infer actual malice under a variety of circumstances. It treats the reporting of any statement by an anonymous source as presumptively false, and it awards plaintiffs attorneys’ fees when they prevail under the statute’s relaxed standards.
H.B. 991 also provides an opportunity for plaintiffs’ lawyers to use the courts to intimidate defendants by layering multiple claims and forcing defendants to bear greater and greater legal expenses. For example, the new bill recognizes “false light invasion of privacy”—a tort that lets someone recover damages when the media mischaracterizes their identities or actions in an offensive way. The Florida Supreme Court has largely rejected this tort (as have many other states), in part because the vagueness of that standard will surely chill speech.
Some of the bill’s provisions are likely to be held unconstitutional under current law. The bill’s sponsor has denied that a central motivation for the bill is to encourage the Supreme Court to revisit the constitutional limits on defamation actions, but since Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have expressed a desire to reconsider the doctrine, this bill might give the Supreme Court the vehicle it needs.
The Florida bill—and those who would radically tilt First Amendment protections against the media and other speakers—ignores the threat that weaponized defamation suits pose not just to the media, but to us all.
Citizens in a democracy should be free to share their views—even if caustic and intemperate—on matters that affect us all. When it comes to criticism of the powerful, James Madison (and the Sullivan court) were right that we need to allow some breathing space for free speech and press, because negligent errors are inevitable.
The actual malice standard does not eliminate media liability for false statements. Changes to defamation law should come through nuanced deliberation and careful analysis of costs and benefits.
To be sure, the internet and social media have changed public discourse, and not always for the better. Hyperbole and exaggeration diffuse into every facet of public life. Speakers take advantage of social media virality to pass on hyperpartisan conspiracist ideas untethered from facts. Instead of bringing us together, our communication spaces are exacerbating tribalism.
Such social fault lines can make it tempting to punish those with whom we disagree. But making it easier for plaintiffs to weaponize defamation law is not the answer.
Weaponized defamation actions are censorship, pure and simple. It was true when the Supreme Court decided Sullivan, and it is still true now.
https://news.yahoo.com/florida-could-become-capital-weaponized-094017059.html
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,452
- Likes
- 146,889
- Points
- 115
Ron DeSantis’ Anti-Free Speech Crusade Would Cancel Fox News
When Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis pushed the Florida legislature to join his crusade against “wokeness” in public schools, First Amendment experts warned that like many of the anti-“critical race theory” laws around the country, the bills were written so broadly that they could be reasonably interpreted as de facto prohibition on anything other than specifically state-sanctioned speech.
Even critics of “wokeness” have argued that prohibitions on “divisive concepts” and definitions of “truth” are subjective, vague, and destined to sweep up far more content than was originally intended.
And wouldn’t you know it, now that schools across Florida are removing innocuous books because they bump up against certain “divisive” interpretations of gender, sexuality, and racism that could conceivably run afoul of Florida law—DeSantis is crying, “Hoax!”
School Speech Bans Came From Republicans’ Inferiority Complex About America
The governor and his gaggle of sycophantic right-wing media influencers insist the book bans were only meant to go after the “porn” in books like Gender Queer or the “racism” in books like How to Be an Antiracist—and that most of the hundreds of other books facing state censorship were mistakenly included in the purge, or deliberately removed by educators to make DeSantis look bad.
Team DeSantis wants to have it both ways. They deny book bans are even happening, but the erstwhile small government, free marketplace of ideas-supporting conservatives are also openly contemptuous of the free inquiry and open debate trappings of liberal democracy. Better to ban the “bad” ideas than debate them, defeat them, or teach them in a larger context. (But don’t call it a ban, which they contend in the face of all evidence is a “hoax.”)
Or as right-wing activist Christopher Rufo (now a trustee of the New College of Florida following DeSantis’ ideologically driven takeover of the school) put it in a tweet, “We’re in charge now.”
(There's not enough space in this column to get into DeSantis’ illiberal War on Disney, which New York's Jonathan Chait summarized thusly: “First, DeSantis established the principle that he can and will use the power of the state to punish private firms that exercise their First Amendment right to criticize his positions. Now he is promising to continue exerting state power to pressure the firm to produce content that comports with his own ideological agenda.”)
And lest you think Florida Republicans are done trammeling on free speech, a new bill threatens to up the ante.
Ron DeSantis and the New Campus Free Speech Crisis
Here’s how Jeremy C. Young, senior manager of free expression and education at PEN America, describes a proposed law that would (among other things) prohibit all gender studies majors, DEI initiatives, and allow tenure to be revoked on a whim: “By handing politicians and political appointees the power to rewrite college mission statements, ban majors and programs, and hire and fire faculty according to political whims, HB 999 would silence those conversations and enact an unprecedented and unparalleled regime of government interference in public education.”
So, just as broadly written bans on nebulously defined ideas are leading to otherwise unobjectionable books being vacuumed up in the censorial process, Florida will now consider a new law that further narrows the guardrails of acceptable discourse in higher education. (Unintended consequences of overreaching government action…who knew?)
DeSantis’ other primary culture war battle—his crusade against the “corporate media”—also presents a potential outcome for which he likely hasn’t given much consideration. In the name of “truth,” the Florida governor wants to remove a major legal protection for journalists, even though his own right-wing media buddies would probably suffer the harshest consequences.
Ron DeSantis, Truth Cop
At times, the Florida governor seems like he’d rather be a Fox News host than president. He loves the trappings of cable TV news—the pontificating from the bully pulpit, the non-stop hammering of culture war rhetoric, and the warm, cozy feeling of being safely siloed in an ideological echo chamber, unchallenged and adored.
While cosplaying as a fearlessly pugnacious straight-shooter, he has avoided speaking with news outlets and reporters that aren’t openly supportive of him, and last week his press secretary tweeted to “all of the bookers and producers” with NBC-affiliated news outlets that “until your track record improves,” the governor’s office would not speak with them. (Essentially, DeSantis went from refusing to engage with non-chummy media to super-duper not engaging.)
DeSantis absolutely hates the “corporate media” (which, naturally, excludes Fox News, a news media outlet with a massive audience owned by a multinational corporate behemoth). He insists mainstream journalists lie with such impunity that the only solution is for government intervention, with laws that substantially lower the bar to prove defamation. This includes overturning the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case, New York Times v. Sullivan, in which the justices ruled unanimously that for a plaintiff to prove actual malice, the defendant must have defamed a person “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
In a recent livestream designed to look like a cable news segment, the Harvard Law grad DeSantis sat before a TV screen reading the word, “TRUTH,” at a semi-circle table between guest panelists helping the governor make his case that the government needs to make it easier to sue media outlets for libel.
Trump Will Never Stop Reminding Us That He Hates Free Speech
Though DeSantis was, once again, infuriatingly vague about what exactly he thinks the government should do to fight back against “media lies,” a state legislator last week introduced yet another bill that would essentially criminalize the use of anonymous sources, and make the “failure to validate or corroborate the alleged defamatory statement” meet the standard for actual malice.
This means mistakes could no longer be made, for any reason. It would mean news outlets would be legally liable to prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) any fact they disseminated.
This would be, of course, impossible, and it would mean that the most powerful people in our society would be all but exempt from public criticism. It would mean the death of journalism. Joe Cohn of the non-partisan Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) wrote, “Passage of this dangerous bill would spell disaster for free speech by constricting the open debate that is critical for a democracy to function.”
A woman dressed in a costume from the show "The Handmaid's Tale" holds a sign during a staged walkout at the New College of Florida, a public liberal arts college, to protest against a proposed wide-reaching legislation that would ban gender studies majors and diversity programs at Florida universities, in Sarasota, Florida.
Octavio Jones/Reuters
But even if DeSantis and other Republicans’ super-charged pro-censorship initiatives never came to be, even lowering the bar to prove actual malice just a tiny bit could very well put Fox News out of business.
Fox News Pundits Knew the “Big Lie” Was a Lie, and Lied About It Anyway
A trove of emails and other communications from Fox News executives and on air talent—released as part of discovery in Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion lawsuit against the network for defaming the company after the 2020 presidential election—showed everyone from Rupert Murdoch to Tucker Carlson to loyal Trump toady Sean Hannity knew that Trump’s Big Lie about massive voter fraud was total bullshit the whole time.
Florida’s Ban on an AP African American Studies Class Is Authoritarian
Fox News often hides behind the fact that its most popular programming consists of “opinion” shows (as opposed to its ever-shrinking “straight news” operation), a distinction the network has used to defend itself in other defamation cases.
But the Dominion lawsuit has revealed that even the most opinionated of Fox News hosts see themselves as “news sources.”
Let’s put aside for a moment how disgusting it is that these popular media personalities—out of fear of alienating Trump and losing audience to tiny Fox News knockoffs, like Newsmax—absolutely poisoned the body politic, cementing in millions of people’s brains that Joe Biden is an illegitimate president, sitting in the White House as the result of the most convoluted and yet flawlessly executed conspiracy in the history of mankind.
Actual human beings were directly hurt as a result of these lies.
Elected officials and election workers were harassed and threatened at their homes. Over a dozen states passed restrictive voter laws to combat the supposed massive fraud that Fox News personalities knew fully well didn’t exist. And then there was that whole assault on the U.S. Capitol thing.
That’s ballgame, right? They knew these were lies, and yet they propagated those lies. Under the standard of actual malice right now, it sure seems like there’s more than enough evidence to clear the bar.
Fox News Star Says Network Won’t Let Him Cover Fox-Dominion Lawsuit
But get this, Fox News lawyers have cited as a defense…New York Times v. Sullivan.
“There will be a lot of noise and confusion generated by Dominion and their opportunistic private equity owners, but the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution and protected by New York Times v. Sullivan,” the network said in a statement.
Some legal experts have argued that this case (if decided against Fox News), could actually end up proving that the bar to prove defamation that was set by Sullivan isn’t an impossible one to meet. But surely, without Sullivan, Fox News would already be toast.
If this were a rational political moment, it’d be the time for the governor to choose sides.
Does he really want to remove the robust protections for media freedom that were set by Sullivan? Like his anti-woke education crusade, he might not always be happy with the unintended consequences of his culture war broadsides—which, in this case, could include the death of Fox News.
https://news.yahoo.com/ron-desantis-anti-free-speech-011757504.html
When Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis pushed the Florida legislature to join his crusade against “wokeness” in public schools, First Amendment experts warned that like many of the anti-“critical race theory” laws around the country, the bills were written so broadly that they could be reasonably interpreted as de facto prohibition on anything other than specifically state-sanctioned speech.
Even critics of “wokeness” have argued that prohibitions on “divisive concepts” and definitions of “truth” are subjective, vague, and destined to sweep up far more content than was originally intended.
And wouldn’t you know it, now that schools across Florida are removing innocuous books because they bump up against certain “divisive” interpretations of gender, sexuality, and racism that could conceivably run afoul of Florida law—DeSantis is crying, “Hoax!”
School Speech Bans Came From Republicans’ Inferiority Complex About America
The governor and his gaggle of sycophantic right-wing media influencers insist the book bans were only meant to go after the “porn” in books like Gender Queer or the “racism” in books like How to Be an Antiracist—and that most of the hundreds of other books facing state censorship were mistakenly included in the purge, or deliberately removed by educators to make DeSantis look bad.
Team DeSantis wants to have it both ways. They deny book bans are even happening, but the erstwhile small government, free marketplace of ideas-supporting conservatives are also openly contemptuous of the free inquiry and open debate trappings of liberal democracy. Better to ban the “bad” ideas than debate them, defeat them, or teach them in a larger context. (But don’t call it a ban, which they contend in the face of all evidence is a “hoax.”)
Or as right-wing activist Christopher Rufo (now a trustee of the New College of Florida following DeSantis’ ideologically driven takeover of the school) put it in a tweet, “We’re in charge now.”
(There's not enough space in this column to get into DeSantis’ illiberal War on Disney, which New York's Jonathan Chait summarized thusly: “First, DeSantis established the principle that he can and will use the power of the state to punish private firms that exercise their First Amendment right to criticize his positions. Now he is promising to continue exerting state power to pressure the firm to produce content that comports with his own ideological agenda.”)
And lest you think Florida Republicans are done trammeling on free speech, a new bill threatens to up the ante.
Ron DeSantis and the New Campus Free Speech Crisis
Here’s how Jeremy C. Young, senior manager of free expression and education at PEN America, describes a proposed law that would (among other things) prohibit all gender studies majors, DEI initiatives, and allow tenure to be revoked on a whim: “By handing politicians and political appointees the power to rewrite college mission statements, ban majors and programs, and hire and fire faculty according to political whims, HB 999 would silence those conversations and enact an unprecedented and unparalleled regime of government interference in public education.”
So, just as broadly written bans on nebulously defined ideas are leading to otherwise unobjectionable books being vacuumed up in the censorial process, Florida will now consider a new law that further narrows the guardrails of acceptable discourse in higher education. (Unintended consequences of overreaching government action…who knew?)
DeSantis’ other primary culture war battle—his crusade against the “corporate media”—also presents a potential outcome for which he likely hasn’t given much consideration. In the name of “truth,” the Florida governor wants to remove a major legal protection for journalists, even though his own right-wing media buddies would probably suffer the harshest consequences.
Ron DeSantis, Truth Cop
At times, the Florida governor seems like he’d rather be a Fox News host than president. He loves the trappings of cable TV news—the pontificating from the bully pulpit, the non-stop hammering of culture war rhetoric, and the warm, cozy feeling of being safely siloed in an ideological echo chamber, unchallenged and adored.
While cosplaying as a fearlessly pugnacious straight-shooter, he has avoided speaking with news outlets and reporters that aren’t openly supportive of him, and last week his press secretary tweeted to “all of the bookers and producers” with NBC-affiliated news outlets that “until your track record improves,” the governor’s office would not speak with them. (Essentially, DeSantis went from refusing to engage with non-chummy media to super-duper not engaging.)
DeSantis absolutely hates the “corporate media” (which, naturally, excludes Fox News, a news media outlet with a massive audience owned by a multinational corporate behemoth). He insists mainstream journalists lie with such impunity that the only solution is for government intervention, with laws that substantially lower the bar to prove defamation. This includes overturning the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case, New York Times v. Sullivan, in which the justices ruled unanimously that for a plaintiff to prove actual malice, the defendant must have defamed a person “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
In a recent livestream designed to look like a cable news segment, the Harvard Law grad DeSantis sat before a TV screen reading the word, “TRUTH,” at a semi-circle table between guest panelists helping the governor make his case that the government needs to make it easier to sue media outlets for libel.
Trump Will Never Stop Reminding Us That He Hates Free Speech
Though DeSantis was, once again, infuriatingly vague about what exactly he thinks the government should do to fight back against “media lies,” a state legislator last week introduced yet another bill that would essentially criminalize the use of anonymous sources, and make the “failure to validate or corroborate the alleged defamatory statement” meet the standard for actual malice.
This means mistakes could no longer be made, for any reason. It would mean news outlets would be legally liable to prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) any fact they disseminated.
This would be, of course, impossible, and it would mean that the most powerful people in our society would be all but exempt from public criticism. It would mean the death of journalism. Joe Cohn of the non-partisan Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) wrote, “Passage of this dangerous bill would spell disaster for free speech by constricting the open debate that is critical for a democracy to function.”
A woman dressed in a costume from the show "The Handmaid's Tale" holds a sign during a staged walkout at the New College of Florida, a public liberal arts college, to protest against a proposed wide-reaching legislation that would ban gender studies majors and diversity programs at Florida universities, in Sarasota, Florida.
Octavio Jones/Reuters
But even if DeSantis and other Republicans’ super-charged pro-censorship initiatives never came to be, even lowering the bar to prove actual malice just a tiny bit could very well put Fox News out of business.
Fox News Pundits Knew the “Big Lie” Was a Lie, and Lied About It Anyway
A trove of emails and other communications from Fox News executives and on air talent—released as part of discovery in Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion lawsuit against the network for defaming the company after the 2020 presidential election—showed everyone from Rupert Murdoch to Tucker Carlson to loyal Trump toady Sean Hannity knew that Trump’s Big Lie about massive voter fraud was total bullshit the whole time.
Florida’s Ban on an AP African American Studies Class Is Authoritarian
Fox News often hides behind the fact that its most popular programming consists of “opinion” shows (as opposed to its ever-shrinking “straight news” operation), a distinction the network has used to defend itself in other defamation cases.
But the Dominion lawsuit has revealed that even the most opinionated of Fox News hosts see themselves as “news sources.”
Let’s put aside for a moment how disgusting it is that these popular media personalities—out of fear of alienating Trump and losing audience to tiny Fox News knockoffs, like Newsmax—absolutely poisoned the body politic, cementing in millions of people’s brains that Joe Biden is an illegitimate president, sitting in the White House as the result of the most convoluted and yet flawlessly executed conspiracy in the history of mankind.
Actual human beings were directly hurt as a result of these lies.
Elected officials and election workers were harassed and threatened at their homes. Over a dozen states passed restrictive voter laws to combat the supposed massive fraud that Fox News personalities knew fully well didn’t exist. And then there was that whole assault on the U.S. Capitol thing.
That’s ballgame, right? They knew these were lies, and yet they propagated those lies. Under the standard of actual malice right now, it sure seems like there’s more than enough evidence to clear the bar.
Fox News Star Says Network Won’t Let Him Cover Fox-Dominion Lawsuit
But get this, Fox News lawyers have cited as a defense…New York Times v. Sullivan.
“There will be a lot of noise and confusion generated by Dominion and their opportunistic private equity owners, but the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution and protected by New York Times v. Sullivan,” the network said in a statement.
Some legal experts have argued that this case (if decided against Fox News), could actually end up proving that the bar to prove defamation that was set by Sullivan isn’t an impossible one to meet. But surely, without Sullivan, Fox News would already be toast.
If this were a rational political moment, it’d be the time for the governor to choose sides.
Does he really want to remove the robust protections for media freedom that were set by Sullivan? Like his anti-woke education crusade, he might not always be happy with the unintended consequences of his culture war broadsides—which, in this case, could include the death of Fox News.
https://news.yahoo.com/ron-desantis-anti-free-speech-011757504.html
