National Religious Broadcasters urge Florida lawmakers to kill bill to avoid 'lawfare' against Christians
The National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) urged Florida state lawmakers on Monday to oppose a controversial bill that has a "very real possibility of weaponizing a wave of 'lawfare' against Christian broadcasters," according to the group's general counsel.
Senate Bill 752, which has been widely criticized by conservatives, would amend Florida's retraction statute, which limits defamation damages if a retraction or correction is published, to force publishers to also remove online content that contains false information. The bill also notes that a publisher must act if a "reasonable person" would conclude a statement is false.
The NRB, which bills itself as "a nonpartisan, international association of Christian communicators whose member organizations represent millions of listeners, viewers, and readers," sent a letter to GOP state Senate president Ben Albritton urging lawmakers to oppose it.
"We urge you and your Senate colleagues to oppose SB 752. The legislation is well-intentioned but contains serious flaws which could adversely affect publishers and broadcasters, including religious broadcasters," NRB general counsel Michael Farris wrote in a letter obtained by Fox News Digital.
"The most significant problem arises from the changes related to demands for corrections to articles archived on a broadcaster's website. Plaintiffs can demand changes to old publications on one of two grounds. First, if a statement has been determined to be false in a judicial proceeding. Second, a change can be demanded if the publisher or broadcaster 'receives notice of facts that would cause a reasonable person to conclude that such statement was false,'" Farris added. "It is the second provision that is the most problematic. The 'reasonable person' standard is inherently ambiguous in this context and is often a matter of perspective or opinion."
The NRB general counsel then explained that "Christian broadcasters often take positions that are at odds with views of certain elites within society" and SB 752 could result in lawfare.
"For example, if a transgendered male presents as a female and competes in girls' sports, and a Christian broadcaster says that a male has been competing in women's sports, the broadcaster could be potentially sued under this section for old articles on the subject. Armed with 'evidence' from experts who support the affirmation of gender transition, a plaintiff could see relief under this legislation by claiming that his new gender is a fact and to refer to him as a male is both false and defamatory. The claim would be that reasonable people would conclude that transgendered males are in fact females and should be referred in such a manner," Farris wrote.
"This possibility opens up a very real possibility of weaponizing a wave of 'lawfare' against Christian broadcasters simply for standing up for what they believe to be true," the letter continued. "First Amendment rights are precious and tampering with the time-honored legal standards is a task that should be undertaken with the greatest care and precision."
Ferris concluded the letter by urging senators to oppose the bill.
"This legislation should be defeated for now. If there are other problems that this bill seeks to address, I would offer to collaborate with legislators or staff so that legitimate problems could be addressed without risking unanticipated harm to broadcasters and publishers—many of which share your worldview," Ferris wrote.
Earlier this month, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 8-2 in favor of the bill.
Others have taken to social media to condemn the bill:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
"Protests fall far short of rebellion": Judge blocks Trump from deploying National Guard in L.A.
A federal judge barred Donald Trump from deploying the California National Guard in response to protests in Los Angeles. U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer ruled on Thursday that the president's takeover of the troops in California was unlawful and ordered Trump to return control of the state-level force to Gov. Gavin Newsom. Breyer wrote that "the founders" intended control of the National Guard to remain with states. "It is not the federal government's place in our constitutional system to take over a state's police power whenever it is dissatisfied with how vigorously or quickly the state is enforcing its own laws," he wrote. While the president does have the power to mobilize the National Guard under the Insurrection Act, Breyer felt the protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Southern California failed to qualify as an insurrection. "Individuals' right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone," he wrote. "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion.'' Breyer's ruling goes well beyond the request for a restraining order filed by Newsom. The governor had asked for an order that barred Marines and National Guard members deployed in Los Angeles from being used in law enforcement actions. The ruling, in effect, cancels the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to the area. The ruling orderes Trump to return control to Newsom by midday Friday. The ruling did not order any action with regard to the several hundred Marines deployed in the state. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth refused to answer questions from members of Congress on Thursday about how he would respond to court orders. 'What I can say is we should not have local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country,' Hegseth said during a hearing.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Lean budget threatens to spark public college turf war
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up At this May's meeting, after a presentation about an upcoming advertising campaign for state financial aid programs, Pedraja expressed concern that helping low-income students attend four-year schools would take money away from free community college. Advertisement 'We are very concerned that shouting from the treetops that our public four-year institutions are free for certain students based on income will further deplete very limited financial aid for the whole system,' Pedraja said. Advertisement Pedraja said that financial aid money is expected to be tight next year, and free community college is codified in statute, while the MASSGrant Plus expansion is not. 'Not to take away from the importance of marketing toward these students and making education available for all, which I do believe, we ought to be cautious about over-promising to students who are most in need of support,' Pedraja said. In a follow-up interview, Pedraja doubled down on his concern that the state is 'over-promising' by advertising free four-year college for low-income students. He again emphasized the distinction between free community college, which is codified in law, and other financial aid, which comes from a pot of money that can run out. Practically, however, this is a distinction without a difference — at least legally, if not politically. Pedraja is correct that free community college is codified in the Department of Higher Education spokesperson Nicole Giambusso confirmed that free community college and the MASSGrant Plus expansion are both subject to annual appropriations. The House and Senate budget proposals for fiscal 2026 both include money for all these programs, although the Senate's funding level is somewhat higher. State Senator Jo Comerford, Senate chair of the Joint Committee on Higher Education, said lawmakers see these programs as coming from different pockets of money. 'One does not cannibalize each other,' Comerford told me. Advertisement When free community college was established, expanding aid for all low-income students was seen as key to ensuring that students who are qualified to attend a four-year university won't be channeled into community college just because it's free. After all, according to There are potential funding sources — like money collected from the surtax on income over $1 million — that could be tapped to keep both programs running. 'I don't think it should be either/or,' Bridgewater State University President Frederick Clark told me. 'I don't think the segments should be working at cross purposes. We should be leaning in to make sure funding is adequate for financial aid for all students.' It is true that in a tight budget year, lawmakers have to make choices. Policy makers should be honest in crafting their budget around what can realistically be funded. In our interview, Pedraja said he 'would love for everybody to have more access to higher education.' But the troubling implication of his statement is that if there is a Sophie's choice to be made, Massachusetts should prioritize aid for community college students, regardless of income, over low-income students at four-year schools. If the state wants to help the most students achieve their academic potential, that is the wrong approach. Instead, the guiding principle should be helping each student attend the college that's right for them. Advertisement As these financial aid programs continue, state policy makers should collect data to determine their impact. Which aid programs are boosting college enrollment and also college completion rates and postgraduation employment? Are other ways of improving college success working, like If hard choices have to be made about funding, they should be based on which programs most help students succeed. Shira Schoenberg can be reached at
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
With Baumgartner in audience, Trump signs bill blocking Washington's electric vehicle mandate; state sues in response
Jun. 12—WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Thursday signed legislation into law that blocks Washington and other states from following California's lead in phasing out gas-powered vehicles. Rep. Michael Baumgartner of Spokane was among dozens of Republican lawmakers invited to the White House for the occasion, which the president used to riff on a variety of topics in addition to the bill. Between calling Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell "a numbskull" and highlighting his own popularity on TikTok, Trump celebrated the revocation of Biden-era waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency that let California impose stricter vehicle emissions standards than the federal government. After the Biden administration allowed California to ban the sale of gas-powered cars starting in 2035, Washington followed suit in 2022, requiring that all new cars sold in the state be either fully electric or plug-in hybrids. A total of 17 states has adopted similar rules that the newly signed law revokes. "The automakers didn't know what to do, because they're really building cars for two countries," Trump said. "When you have 17 states, you're building cars for two countries." In an interview before the bill-signing ceremony, Baumgartner said the California regulation and its progeny would have been devastating to the U.S. economy. "There does not exist the ability to magically create electric semi-trucks that move nearly 70% of the goods that Americans consume, so it would have been crippling to our economy if this rule was left in place," he said. "You can't run semi-trucks across America on unicorn laughter and aspirational dreams of environmental extremists." To revoke the waivers, the EPA issued under a previous administration, lawmakers invoked the Congressional Review Act, which allowed them to skirt the 60-vote supermajority required to pass most bills in the Senate. They did so despite the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian, the chamber's neutral adviser on rules, both informing senators that the EPA waivers didn't count as the executive-branch rules for which the act applies. Despite near-unanimous opposition from Democratic senators, the bill revoking California's waivers received significant bipartisan support in the House, plus a single Democratic senator, Michigan's Elissa Slotkin. Trump was surprised on Thursday when a GOP lawmaker in the room told him 35 House Democrats had voted in favor. One of them was Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of southwest Washington, who runs an auto repair shop with her husband and has been a frequent critic of her party's push to speed a transition to electric vehicles. Shortly after Thursday's ceremony concluded, Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown and California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a joint lawsuit with nine other states challenging the elimination of California's waiver. The suit alleges that the resolution violates the separation of powers, the Take Care Clause and multiple federal statutes, including the Congressional Review Act and Administrative Procedure Act. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff states allege that the Congressional Review Act has "never before been used in any context that resembles this one. It has certainly never been used, as it was here, to negate particular state laws." The lawsuit seeks to have the resolution declared unlawful and to require the federal government to implement the Clean Air Act consistent with the granted waivers. "Transportation is the single greatest contributor to greenhouse gas pollution in Washington, and our residents understand the transition to zero-emission vehicles is critical in the fight against climate change," Brown said in a statement Thursday. "This is the Trump administration's latest unlawful attempt to derail Washington's and the nation's transition to a clean future." At the White House, Trump railed against Democrats' efforts to use state and federal laws to phase out gas-powered vehicles — the country's biggest single source of greenhouse gas emissions — and speed the adoption of wind, solar and other low-carbon energy sources. "They're making you buy stuff that doesn't work," the president said. "You should be given the option to buy the electric car, by a gasoline-powered car, buy a hybrid. Probably not hydrogen, because hydrogen has the tendency that when it blows up, you're gonzo. It's over." After the room broke out in laughter at that line, Trump turned to Rep. Steve Scalise and said, "It'll make your accident look like peanuts," apparently referring to the 2017 shooting that left the Louisiana Republican in critical condition. Washington state officials have taken steps in recent days to prepare for the new federal law. In a June 6 memo, the Washington State Department of Ecology notified vehicle manufacturers that it would temporarily pause compliance requirements for some vehicle categories. "This recent federal action introduces new uncertainty for states, manufacturers, and consumers at a time when both businesses and consumers are making real progress in reducing the transportation sector's greenhouse gas emissions," Ecology Director Casey Sixkiller said in a statement June 6. "It undermines states' rights, negatively impacts public health, and puts U.S. automakers at a competitive disadvantage in a global market that is rapidly transitioning to zero-emission vehicle technology." Sixkiller added that the agency would work with legislators, industry partners, local governments and other states to "stay on track and ensure continued progress toward our climate and public health goals." After the federal bill cleared the Senate in late May, Gov. Bob Ferguson said in a statement that the action was "brazenly out of step with the law, science, and public will." "For more than 50 years, states have possessed the ability to adopt stronger vehicle emissions standards to protect public health. Washington has exercised that right, along with 17 other states, resulting in cleaner air and healthier communities," Ferguson said. "Despite this retreat from public health by the federal government, I'm committed to ensuring Washington moves forward on building a healthier, cleaner future." Thursday's bill signing drew praise of the Washington Trucking Association, which said it remains committed to working with Washington lawmakers and the Department of Ecology on a "workable path to electrification." "California's EV trucking mandates have been a disaster for states like Washington, and have caused real harm to the trucking industry, a key link in our trade-dependent state's supply chain network," the association's president and CEO, Sheri Call, said in a statement. "Washington state does not have the infrastructure in place to properly institute such a sweeping mandate like this, and the technology has not advanced enough yet to support the trucking industry's rapid transition to clean energy. Our neighbors in Oregon recently opted out of these mandates for these same reasons." Vicki Giles Fabré, vice president of the Washington State Auto Dealers Association, said that Washington's franchised new car and truck dealers have "made substantial investments in electrification and remain committed to selling electric and hybrid vehicles." "The Washington State Auto Dealers Association intends to work with state policymakers to find solutions that incentivize increased adoption of these vehicles, while also supporting the needs of franchised dealers, their employees, and the customers they serve," Fabré said in a statement Wednesday. According to Sixkiller, one in five new vehicles sold today runs on zero-emission technology. "We're not going to slow down that progress. Washingtonians already experience the impacts of climate change every year, from drought and wildfire to flooding and sea-level rise," Sixkiller said in a statement following the Attorney General's lawsuit. "As our Attorney General's Office fights to protect our state's rights, we'll continue working with the Legislature, industry partners, local governments, and other states to continue our progress on clean transportation. At a time of great uncertainty, that's a promise we can keep." Orion Donovan Smith's work is funded in part by members of the Spokane community via the Community Journalism and Civic Engagement Fund. This story can be republished by other organizations for free under a Creative Commons license. For more information on this, please contact our newspaper's managing editor.
