Latest news with #SB752
Miami Herald
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
In the name of media accountability, Florida bill would make it easier to revisit history
A proposed Florida law that purports to hold media outlets accountable would actually make facts 'airbrushable' from history, as Bobby Block, executive director of the First Amendment Foundation, told the Herald Editorial Board. Think of the murder charges against Casey Anthony related to the death of her daughter and those against George Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin's death. Both cases were widely covered in the media before the accused were found not guilty. If Senate Bill 752 is approved by the Florida Legislature, experts say, it would allow former defendants like Anthony and Zimmerman to require media outlets to take down news content about the charges against them because they weren't convicted — even if those stories accurately described the facts at the time of their arrest. That's one bizarre consequence of SB 752 — and it goes even further than that. The proposal would make it easier for subjects of news reporting to require that entire online articles be removed from a website within 10 days 'if any part of the online article is inaccurate' — no matter how small or inconsequential the error — Kara Gross, legislative director and senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, wrote in a statement. That means taking down 'entire articles, even if only one sentence is disputed,' James Lake, a defamation lawyer, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 12. A correction or apology alone would not be enough to avoid punitive damages in court, Miami-based First Amendment lawyer Thomas Julin told the Board. This would affect not only the 'liberal mainstream media' that Republicans dislike, but also the vast network of Florida's conservative news organizations, many of them small, that would be hard-pressed to afford the legal costs of defending themselves from defamation lawsuits. The religious communications group National Religious Broadcasters has warned the legislation would be weaponized against against Christian broadcasters. In the end, if entire articles are taken down or the press ends up self-censoring to avoid legal issues, the public loses its ability to be informed. The bill, filed by Sen. Corey Smith, R-Tallahassee, undermines what's known as 'fair reporting privilege.' Under the law, reporters have legal protections if they report on judicial and public records in a fair and accurate way. That includes statements made during court proceedings, public meetings or a police report when someone is arrested. The bill states that if a newspaper, TV station or other outlet 'publishes a defamatory statement on the Internet with no knowledge of falsity of the statement,' they are required to take down that statement if they 'receive notice that such statement has been found in a judicial proceeding to be false' — a judicial proceeding could be interpreted to include an acquittal from criminal charges — 'or receives notice of facts that would cause a reasonable person to conclude that such statement was false.' If the news outlet fails to do so, they lose their fair reporting privilege. SB 752, and its House companion, have been sold as a remedy for people whose reputations were ruined because of news stories about crimes they were accused of, even when those charges were later dropped or the defendants were found not guilty. Certainly, being accused of a crime shouldn't ruin anyone's life, especially if they aren't convicted. But the problem is how broad the legislation is, and how it revisits what the truth means. When law enforcement charged Anthony in 2008 with murdering her daughter, for example, those were the facts reported in the media at the time. Her subsequent acquittal doesn't change those initial events. '[The bill] would require you to go back and edit history,' Julin said. Another problem is how the legislation addresses statements that 'a reasonable person' would find false. That standard is 'often a matter of perspective or opinion,' the National Religious Broadcasters wrote in a letter to Senate leadership, Fox News reported. These outlets would be at risk of facing lawsuits because they 'often take positions that are at odds with views of certain elites within society,' NRB general counsel Michael Farris wrote. If lawmakers truly want to help people whose reputations have been harmed, then a bill that narrowly addresses that would make more sense. This legislation seems more geared toward a broad and dangerous goal of chilling speech. Click here to send the letter.
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House Democrats get on board with bill requiring media to remove certain online articles
The Florida Capitol building on Aug. 12, 2024. (Photo by Jay Waagmeester/Florida Phoenix) A bill to loosen defamation lawsuit restrictions advanced in the Florida House Thursday, with support from Democrats who said they'd been targets of false information spread online. For three years, the Florida Legislature has considered GOP-backed bills making it easier to sue news organizations for defamation, but this proposal is drawing wider support from Democrats, with Tallahassee Democratic Rep. Allison Tant co-sponsoring the House measure. The Senate and House proposals (SB 752 and HB 667) would compel news outlets to take down content from their websites within days of notification that the published information is false or outdated. Failure to remove the content would open them to defamation suits. St. Petersburg Democratic Rep. Michele Rayner supports the bill, saying she didn't understand why the media would want to keep false information on the internet. 'I've had people get on the internet and say atrocious things about me, things that are actually not true, and I've had to sit here and say, 'Well, can't do anything about it,'' Rayner said. 'And I'm a state representative lawyer. I could file my own motion and do what I needed to do.' The House Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee advanced the bill unanimously, with four Democrats in support, despite warnings it amounts to censorship. The bill was inspired by the case of a Miami man who'd been accused of molesting a child only to see the charges dropped. A TV station refused his request to scrub the story from its website. 'Sometimes innocence doesn't erase the fact that an arrest and charge occurred,' said Bobby Block, executive director of the First Amendment Foundation. 'They may be inconvenient facts, but they are true. If we were to buy into this bill's logic, we would have to erase the OJ Simpson car chases and every report on Casey Anthony from history.' Barry Richard, a prominent Tallahassee lawyer who represented that Miami man, said the change is necessary because of the permanence of the internet. Richard is married to Tant, the House co-sponsor. The proposal would allow suits for up to 20 years after the publication of an article. 'If you now have reason to know it's not true, you can't keep it up. What is the public interest in keeping this story up for seven years and ruining a person's life?' Barry asked the panel Thursday. Democrats' support for the bill has been more limited in the Senate, where only Rosalind Osgood, of Broward County, has supported it in committee. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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. Cnn Executive Who Was Demoted After High-profile Defamation Trial Getting Raw Deal, Staffers Say "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." Read On The Fox News App 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. Jury Finds Cnn Committed Defamation Against Navy Veteran, Settlement Reached On Punitive Damages "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. Cnn Defamation Trial: Losing Case Expected But Still A Bad Bruise For The Network, Insider Says 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:Original article source: National Religious Broadcasters urge Florida lawmakers to kill bill to avoid 'lawfare' against Christians
Fox News
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
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:
