Politics The Florida GOP (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
SlyPokerDog said:
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
Click to expand...

SlyPokerDog said:
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.”

6a041e9d2345597fac9bfbbbc170c5ce

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
Click to expand...


Both of these articles are currently featured as the top stories on the conservative Drudge Report.

EB42ySw.jpg
 
The man DeSantis appointed to oversee the new non woke Disney is a far right Christian nationalist who thinks tap water makes men gay.
 
crandc said:
The man DeSantis appointed to oversee the new non woke Disney is a far right Christian nationalist who thinks tap water makes men gay.
Click to expand...

Duh real men drink Brawndo, it’s got what plants crave! Not the stuff in the toilet!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
Florida courts could take 'emergency' custody of kids with trans parents or siblings — even if they live in another state

  • Florida Senate Bill 254 would grant courts emergency custody of kids who receive gender-affirming care.
  • The bill, introduced Friday, would also allow the courts to modify out-of-state custody agreements.
  • The bill would grant officials authority under the law that protects kids from domestic violence.


A proposed bill making its way through the Florida State Senate would allow the state "emergency jurisdiction" over children who receive or are "at risk of" receiving gender-affirming care — or if their parent receives it themselves.

Senate Bill 254, introduced Friday by State Senator Clay Yarborough, would grant the court authority to take emergency custody of kids under the same statute that protects them from domestic violence and abuse.

The state could take temporary custody of children if "it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child" is "at risk of or is being subjected to the provision of sex reassignment prescriptions or procedures," according to the proposed bill text.

The proposed bill defines sex reassignment prescriptions or procedures as hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and surgeries or procedures that "affirm a person's perception of his or her sex if that perception is inconsistent with the person's sex" at birth.

The court would also be granted "jurisdiction to vacate, stay, or modify a child custody determination of a court of another state to protect the child from the risk of being subjected to the provision of sex-reassignment prescriptions or procedures," according to the proposed bill text. "The court must vacate, stay, or modify the child custody determination to the extent necessary to protect the child from the provision of such prescriptions or procedures."

Representatives for Yarborough, who sponsored the bill, did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

Alejandra Caraballo, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law School's Cyberlaw Clinic and former staff attorney at the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, tweeted that the proposed law would allow "legal kidnapping" of trans kids and is part of a "full on war against trans people in the state of Florida."

"The bill goes even further to violate interstate comity by authorizing the courts to vacate child custody determinations of other courts only if the child is trans. This is a greenlight to transphobic family members to engage in state sponsored kidnapping," Caraballo said, adding: "A transphobic parent could kidnap their trans child in violation of custody agreements and abscond to Florida and be protected by Florida law under this despite likely committing felony kidnapping in their home state."

Caraballo did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

Florida House Representatives Randy Fine and Ralph Massullo proposed a separate bill on Friday that, if passed, would make it illegal for doctors to provide gender-affirming care including puberty blockers and hormone therapy to minors, local news outlet Click Orlando reported.

Last month, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis requested public entities, including hospitals and universities, provide a breakdown of the medical data of patients who received gender-affirming care at their institutions. Students from public universities walked off campus in protest.

The state has seen an increase in anti-LGBT bill proposals and laws in recent years, including DeSantis' controversial "Don't Say Gay" bill, which limits how teachers may instruct about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Representatives for DeSantis did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

https://www.businessinsider.com/flo...urt-custody-kids-gender-affirming-care-2023-3
 

Attachments

  • benito-trump-mussolini-jpg (1).jpg
    benito-trump-mussolini-jpg (1).jpg
    13.7 KB · Views: 102
download (19).jpeg

Big Brother is watching. 1984 being realized.
 

Attachments

  • download (19).jpeg
    download (19).jpeg
    34.4 KB · Views: 62
Author of Don't Say Gay law pled guilty to stealing Covid relief funds. But he's so moral! He hates gay people!
 
Voodoo said:
Who knew 1984 would sound like a squeaky whiney bitch? I for one didn't see that one coming. This guys voice just gets me every time, it's hilarious how all these alpha male wannabes gravitate to someone who would sing soprano in a church choir.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they still flock to him. Weird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Featured content

Back
Top