Florida's House Speaker Stood Up to DeSantis, and Shifted the Power Dynamics
This year has been different, mostly because of one man. Daniel Perez, the Republican speaker of the State House of Representatives, clashed with Mr. DeSantis over how to crack down on illegal immigration; allowed a House investigation into a charity tied to the governor's wife, Casey DeSantis, and insisted on passing a slimmer state budget than what the governor proposed, even if it meant dragging out the unusually bitter legislative session for an extra six weeks.
Mr. Perez, a 37-year-old Cuban American lawyer from Miami, may not have set out to become the governor's adversary when he assumed his leadership role last year. His goal was to reassert his chamber's power, 'to be a coequal branch of government,' he said in an interview on Monday, the session's final day.
Yet that was enough to shift the power dynamics in the Republican-controlled State Capitol, where lawmakers had spent years bending to the will of a popular governor who steadily expanded executive power.
Mr. DeSantis, who is term-limited and has one more regular session left, faced more resistance than ever before. The relationship between Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Perez got so rancorous that, at one point, Mr. DeSantis referred to House lawmakers as 'treacherous.' Mr. Perez countered that the 'emotional' governor was throwing 'temper tantrums.'
In some ways, the conflict was the point, Mr. Perez said on Monday.
'We were able to have a difference of opinion,' he told reporters in Tallahassee. 'We were able to reach a conclusion that maybe either the Senate or the governor didn't agree with. That was our goal.'
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hulk Hogan's sex tape lawsuit had a lasting effect on cases involving celebrity privacy
Famous for his fearless bravado as a pro wrestler, Hulk Hogan won one of his most notable victories in a Florida courtroom by emphasizing his humiliation and emotional distress after a news and gossip website published a video of Hogan having sex with a friend's wife. A 2016 civil trial that pitted the First Amendment against the privacy rights of celebrities ended with a jury awarding Hogan a whopping $140 million in his lawsuit against Gawker Media. Though both parties later settled on $31 million to avoid protracted appeals, the case put Gawker out of business. It also ensured Hogan, who died Thursday at age 71, and his legal team would have a long-term impact on media law. The case showed that, in certain circumstances, celebrities could persuade a jury that their right to privacy outweighs the freedom of the press — even when the published material was true. The case put media outlets on notice that 'the public doesn't necessarily like the press,' especially when reporting intrudes into intimate details of even public figures' private lives, said Samantha Barbas, a University of Iowa law professor who writes about press freedoms and First Amendment issues. She said it also emboldened celebrities, politicians and others in the public spotlight to be more aggressive in suing over unflattering news coverage — as seen recently in President Donald Trump's pursuit of court cases against the Wall Street Journal, ABC and CBS. 'I think the lasting effect of the Hulk Hogan case was it really started this trend of libel and privacy lawsuits being weaponized to kind of take down these media organizations,' Barbas said. Hogan wept hearing the verdict in a case that was 'real personal' Hogan, whose given name was Terry Bollea, sued Gawker for invading his privacy after the website in 2012 posted an edited version of a video of Hogan having sex with the wife of his then-best friend, Florida-based radio DJ Bubba The Love Sponge Clem. Clem gave his blessing to the coupling and recorded the video that was later leaked to Gawker. Hogan insisted he was unaware the intimate encounter was being filmed. The former WWE champion testified that he was 'completely humiliated' when the sex video became public. Hogan's lead trial attorney, Ken Turkel, recalled Thursday how his muscular, mustachioed client cried in court as the jury verdict was read. 'To him the privacy part of it was integral. It was important,' Turkel said. 'Eight-year-old kids were googling 'Hulk Hogan' and 'Wrestlemania,' and they were getting a sex tape. That was hurtful to him in a real personal way.' The three-week trial was closely followed far beyond the courtroom in St. Petersburg, Florida, as thousands of wrestling fans, First Amendment watchers and others stayed glued to their screens as the trial was streamed live online. Salacious details emerged about Hogan's sex life as jurors and spectators viewed. images of him in thong underwear. Other testimony focused on how New York-based Gawker practiced journalism differently than traditional news outlets. And Hogan explained to the jury about the difference between his wrestling persona and his private life. Jury rejected that First Amendment protected publishing sex tape The jury ultimately rejected arguments by Gawker's attorneys that Hogan's sex tape was newsworthy and that publishing it, no matter how distasteful, was protected speech under the First Amendment. 'Now more people, including judges, understand that it's possible to sue someone for revealing something truthful, as long as that something is deeply personal and its publication is highly offensive,' said Amy Gajda, a Brooklyn Law School professor who followed and wrote about the case against Gawker. News outlets still have broad legal protection for publishing information about public figures, even things that would generally be considered private, Gajda said 'As long as there is news value in what is published and the media can argue that effectively, they can get a privacy case dismissed very early on,' she said. ___ Bynum reported from Savannah, Georgia.
Boston Globe
12 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Hulk Hogan's sex tape lawsuit had a lasting effect on cases involving celebrity privacy
Advertisement The case put media outlets on notice that 'the public doesn't necessarily like the press,' especially when reporting intrudes into intimate details of even public figures' private lives, said Samantha Barbas, a University of Iowa law professor who writes about press freedoms and First Amendment issues. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up She said it also emboldened celebrities, politicians and others in the public spotlight to be more aggressive in suing over unflattering news coverage — as seen recently in President Donald Trump's pursuit of court cases against the Wall Street Journal, ABC and CBS. 'I think the lasting effect of the Hulk Hogan case was it really started this trend of libel and privacy lawsuits being weaponized to kind of take down these media organizations,' Barbas said. Advertisement Hogan wept hearing the verdict in a case that was 'real personal' Hogan, whose given name was Terry Bollea, sued Gawker for invading his privacy after the website in 2012 posted an edited version of a video of Hogan having sex with the wife of his then-best friend, Florida-based radio DJ Bubba The Love Sponge Clem. Clem gave his blessing to the coupling and recorded the video that was later leaked to Gawker. Hogan insisted he was unaware the intimate encounter was being filmed. The former WWE champion testified that he was 'completely humiliated' when the sex video became public. Hogan's lead trial attorney, Ken Turkel, recalled Thursday how his muscular, mustachioed client cried in court as the jury verdict was read. 'To him the privacy part of it was integral. It was important,' Turkel said. 'Eight-year-old kids were googling 'Hulk Hogan' and 'Wrestlemania,' and they were getting a sex tape. That was hurtful to him in a real personal way.' The three-week trial was closely followed far beyond the courtroom in St. Petersburg, Florida, as thousands of wrestling fans, First Amendment watchers and others stayed glued to their screens as the trial was streamed live online. Salacious details emerged about Hogan's sex life as jurors and spectators viewed. images of him in thong underwear. Other testimony focused on how New York-based Gawker practiced journalism differently than traditional news outlets. And Hogan explained to the jury about the difference between his wrestling persona and his private life. Jury rejected that First Amendment protected publishing sex tape The jury ultimately rejected arguments by Gawker's attorneys that Hogan's sex tape was newsworthy and that publishing it, no matter how distasteful, was protected speech under the First Amendment. 'Now more people, including judges, understand that it's possible to sue someone for revealing something truthful, as long as that something is deeply personal and its publication is highly offensive,' said Amy Gajda, a Brooklyn Law School professor who followed and wrote about the case against Gawker. Advertisement News outlets still have broad legal protection for publishing information about public figures, even things that would generally be considered private, Gajda said 'As long as there is news value in what is published and the media can argue that effectively, they can get a privacy case dismissed very early on,' she said. Bynum reported from Savannah, Georgia.
Associated Press
13 hours ago
- Associated Press
Hulk Hogan's sex tape lawsuit had a lasting effect on cases involving celebrity privacy
Famous for his fearless bravado as a pro wrestler, Hulk Hogan won one of his most notable victories in a Florida courtroom by emphasizing his humiliation and emotional distress after a news and gossip website published a video of Hogan having sex with a friend's wife. A 2016 civil trial that pitted the First Amendment against the privacy rights of celebrities ended with a jury awarding Hogan a whopping $140 million in his lawsuit against Gawker Media. Though both parties later settled on $31 million to avoid protracted appeals, the case put Gawker out of business. It also ensured Hogan, who died Thursday at age 71, and his legal team would have a long-term impact on media law. The case showed that, in certain circumstances, celebrities could persuade a jury that their right to privacy outweighs the freedom of the press — even when the published material was true. The case put media outlets on notice that 'the public doesn't necessarily like the press,' especially when reporting intrudes into intimate details of even public figures' private lives, said Samantha Barbas, a University of Iowa law professor who writes about press freedoms and First Amendment issues. She said it also emboldened celebrities, politicians and others in the public spotlight to be more aggressive in suing over unflattering news coverage — as seen recently in President Donald Trump's pursuit of court cases against the Wall Street Journal, ABC and CBS. 'I think the lasting effect of the Hulk Hogan case was it really started this trend of libel and privacy lawsuits being weaponized to kind of take down these media organizations,' Barbas said. Hogan wept hearing the verdict in a case that was 'real personal' Hogan, whose given name was Terry Bollea, sued Gawker for invading his privacy after the website in 2012 posted an edited version of a video of Hogan having sex with the wife of his then-best friend, Florida-based radio DJ Bubba The Love Sponge Clem. Clem gave his blessing to the coupling and recorded the video that was later leaked to Gawker. Hogan insisted he was unaware the intimate encounter was being filmed. The former WWE champion testified that he was 'completely humiliated' when the sex video became public. Hogan's lead trial attorney, Ken Turkel, recalled Thursday how his muscular, mustachioed client cried in court as the jury verdict was read. 'To him the privacy part of it was integral. It was important,' Turkel said. 'Eight-year-old kids were googling 'Hulk Hogan' and 'Wrestlemania,' and they were getting a sex tape. That was hurtful to him in a real personal way.' The three-week trial was closely followed far beyond the courtroom in St. Petersburg, Florida, as thousands of wrestling fans, First Amendment watchers and others stayed glued to their screens as the trial was streamed live online. Salacious details emerged about Hogan's sex life as jurors and spectators viewed. images of him in thong underwear. Other testimony focused on how New York-based Gawker practiced journalism differently than traditional news outlets. And Hogan explained to the jury about the difference between his wrestling persona and his private life. Jury rejected that First Amendment protected publishing sex tape The jury ultimately rejected arguments by Gawker's attorneys that Hogan's sex tape was newsworthy and that publishing it, no matter how distasteful, was protected speech under the First Amendment. 'Now more people, including judges, understand that it's possible to sue someone for revealing something truthful, as long as that something is deeply personal and its publication is highly offensive,' said Amy Gajda, a Brooklyn Law School professor who followed and wrote about the case against Gawker. News outlets still have broad legal protection for publishing information about public figures, even things that would generally be considered private, Gajda said 'As long as there is news value in what is published and the media can argue that effectively, they can get a privacy case dismissed very early on,' she said. ___ Bynum reported from Savannah, Georgia.
