News

Will Florida Become a 'Libel Tourism Destination' — and Bury Conservative Media?

Hot Air

By Ed Morrisey

February 20, 2024

Florida Republicans want to change defamation laws in the state to hold mainstream-media outlets more accountable for fake news. They might instead write a death warrant for smaller alternative media platforms, especially conservative media, while turning Florida into a "libel tourism destination," one radio host warns.

The axiom Be careful what you wish for applies here, it seems:

Republican state Rep. Alex Andrade of Pensacola has sponsored a bill that will make it easier for Floridians to sue journalists and news organizations for defamation, something that is historically difficult to prove in court.

Trey Radel, political consultant and host at a Fox News Radio affiliate in Florida, has been an outspoken critic of the legislation (HB 757), insisting that since the premise of the bill is to "make it easier to sue the media," it will cut both ways.

"While certain Republicans may think that they're going to be suing and taking on The New York Times and The Washington Post, here's the breaking news: liberal trial lawyers are going to have a field day with center-right media in the state of Florida," Radel told Fox News Digital in an interview.

"Signing this into law will destroy conservative media in this state."


[Read More]
 

FARRIS: Florida’s GOP-Backed Defamation Bill Would Backfire On The Little Guy

Daily Caller

By Michael Farris

February 19, 2024

Conservatives have a legitimate concern about media bias — especially as administered by the social media giants. Suppression of conservative voices is well-documented and has even been instigated by the Biden White House and other agencies of this administration.

But conservatives should be the last ones to curtail freedom of speech and or create broad new government powers that tread upon freedom of speech and the press.

Unfortunately, some well-intentioned Florida Republicans are pushing a measure through the state legislature that would dangerously infringe on First Amendment freedoms with features that will be used to badger conservative voices into silence.

The first thing that must be said about HB 757 and SB 1780 is that anyone who thinks that this legislation will effectively favor conservatives in their clash with establishment media is going to be deeply disappointed.


[Read More]
 

Florida’s Right to Rock Act would be a double-edged sword. We can live without it | Opinion

Miami Herald

Miami Herald Editorial Board

2/13/2024

The Right to Rock Act advancing in the Florida Legislature aims to address another issue realted to our still-simmering culture wars — a First Amendment question of whether entertainment venues can cancel shows due to an artist’s expressed political views.

Senate Bill 1206 and House Bill 15 would stop venues that are publicly funded or built with public money from breaking performance contracts based on the performer’s lawful exercise of freedom of speech. The act states that an “owner or operator of a public venue may not cancel a live performance of an artist, a performer, or a musical group because of their … personal beliefs.” If there is a cancellation, “venue owners or operators who violate the prohibition bear the costs enumerated in the related contract with the artist, performer, or musical group whose performance was canceled.”

At first blush, the act seems like a way to protect the right of artists from censorship during these polarized, weaponized political times, especially in a presidential election year.

But the implications of the bill are hazy. And more vagueness in legislation is not what Florida needs.

The Florida First Amendment Foundation says the bill is a bad idea. It essentially would give preference to the rights of one party, the artist, by disregarding the rights of another, the venue sponsoring the appearance, Robert “Bobby” Block, the foundation’s executive director, told the Editorial Board.

As Block noted: “This bill is supposed to fight cancel culture, but with another type of cancel culture.”

In other words, Block said, the bill could wind up placing the venue and its First Amendment rights in peril. There are practical concerns, too. What if there are threats of violence, or hate speech, or violence and the venue cannot afford the security? It must go ahead with event — or cancel but still pay the artist. The foundation opposes the bill’s passage. So do we.


[Read More]
 

Why Florida’s proposed libel laws undermine conservative principles

Florida Politics

Drew Steel

02/13/2024

'Florida has led the way in defending freedom of conscience and expanding educational choice. It would be a mistake to stand liberty on its head in a crusade against biased reporters and pundits.'

The legislative impulse behind Florida’s proposed libel laws — HB 757 and SB 1780 — is understandable. Conservatives are justifiably outraged by the lies and vitriol directed at them by an overwhelmingly liberal media complex that dominates public discourse. The bills aim to hold purveyors of misinformation accountable by making it easier to sue for defamation.

Alas, these proposed laws are misguided and threaten to undermine long-cherished conservative principles. However well-intentioned, they contravene fundamental tenets that conservatives have long championed — limited government, free markets and individual liberty. By inviting more regulation and litigation, they expand state power at the expense of personal freedom. Their actual effect would be to chill speech, imperil small media outlets and open the door to the very “lawfare” tactics liberals have used so effectively against conservatives.

[Read More]
 

Social-media ban: Florida’s latest assault on parental and constitutional rights | Commentary

Orlando Sentinel
By Scott Maxwell
January 16, 2024

You probably know Florida lawmakers take an oath swearing to uphold the Constitution.

Unfortunately, you may also know that many of these politicians take that oath about as seriously as a serial philanderer treats a wedding vow. They regularly and cavalierly violate your rights.

Don’t take it from me. Take it from federal judges on both sides of the aisle.

One judge, appointed by Donald Trump, struck down an attempt by Gov. Ron DeSantis and GOP legislators to kneecap donations to citizen-led amendment drives, calling their attempted restriction “wholly foreign to the First Amendment.” Another judge said their attempt to ban social media companies from regulating their own platforms violated free-speech laws.

These politicians, many of whom are lawyers, know their bills are unconstitutional. Yet they pass them anyway and then use your tax dollars and $675-an-hour lawyers to wage legal fights they know they’ll lose.

All of which brings us to their latest attempt to violate your Constitutional and parental rights — their plan to make it illegal for minors to have social media accounts, even with parental permission and supervision.

I have lots of thoughts about the corrupting potential of social media. But here’s the thing: It doesn’t matter what I think. The Constitution says government can’t tell citizens what kind of information they can consume. Yet this bill attempts to do just that.

“If I want to allow my children to read something, this is the state telling me I can’t do that,” said Howard Simon, the longtime leader of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

If you want government controlling your access to information, you might really enjoy life in Cuba or China.

Again, I understand social-media concerns. My wife and I didn’t let our kids own smartphones until long after many of their friends had them. But that’s a decision for us to make — not government. And any true conservative knows that.

The problem, Simon said, is that “These are not conservatives. These are moralistic authoritarians.”

Instead of carefully thinking through issues, they govern like the loud drunk at the end of the bar who belches out opinions on everything without researching hardly anything. “This Legislature seems to enact legislation by gut reaction,” Simon said.

Howard Simon, longtime executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida who has returned to run the organization on a temporary basis. (Photo courtesy ACLU of Florida.)Howard Simon, longtime leader of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. (ACLU of Florida.)
Simon described the bill as another example of “authoritarian creep.” I think it’s more of a gallop. First, GOP lawmakers tried to tell parents they couldn’t take their kids to see some shows with female impersonators. Now they’re trying to tell you that you can’t make your own decisions for your own children inside your own home. They only believe in selective “parental rights.”

“This bill shows that ‘parental rights’ was just a cover for censorship for the governor’s political allies and army of book-banners,” Simon said. “What HB1 says is: We’re going to dictate to parents how you raise your children.”

The fact that this is House Bill No. 1 is significant. That number means it’s a top priority for the speaker. Not fixing the insurance crisis. Not raising Florida’s sad-sack SAT scores. And not addressing the state’s yearslong waiting lists for services needed by families with disabilities.

The bill would ban anyone younger than 16 from creating a new social-media account — even if they have their parents’ permission. It also asks social-media companies to revoke existing accounts for minors, paves the way for civil lawsuits and contemplates $50,000 fines.

The Legislature’s own staff analysts warned lawmakers the bill may run roughshod over the Constitution, saying: “The language in the bill may implicate consideration of a number of constitutional protections.”

But because lawmakers care more about what Speaker Paul Renner wants than what the Constitution says, the bill passed its first committee on a 13-1 vote with only one South Florida Democrat objecting.

“I 100% understand the motivation behind this bill as a former middle school and high school teacher,” said Miami Democrat Ashley Gantt, according to Florida Politics. “It just contradicts how we allow parents to have the ability to make decisions for their child.”

Some censorship supporters argue society already restricts some content restrictions for minors, such as with R-rated movies. But with R-rated movies, someone has already scanned a specific film’s content and concluded it’s meant for mature audiences while parents still make the final call. This bill would ban an entire medium for minors — even if the content is educational in nature and even if parents want their kids to have access to it.

Lawmakers seem to know their censorship plan is problematic, because their bill is a 10-page train wreck.

They know they can’t censor everything. So they started listing social-media sites that would be exempt from their ban. They started with examples A, B and C — and didn’t stop until they hit S. Among the sites they still want minors to access are ones that focus on “professional networking” (as all 8-year-olds crave) and “community groups for public safety.”

They’re trying to put lipstick on a pig. But no matter how many exemptions they include, this bill still violates your rights.

The problem is: They don’t care. They’ve passed scores of unconstitutional laws before, wasted tax dollars defending them and still been re-elected. If you give your dog a treat every time he poops on the carpet, the bad behavior will continue.

I’ve argued before that taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay these unnecessary legal bills. The politicians should, out of their own pockets — especially in cases where experts and the state’s own analysts warn them in advance.

But the better idea would be for these pandering pols to stop running roughshod over the Constitution in the first place. And maybe even pay some respect to the parental rights they claim to respect.

[email protected]
(See Article via Orlando Sentinel website)

 
<< first < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next > last >>

Page 6 of 7