Posted on 02/25/2023 8:10:26 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Gov. Ron DeSantis has targeted one political enemy after another, from removing a top state prosecutor in Tampa who disagreed with him on abortion rights to promoting an “anti-woke” agenda that limits teaching about racism in public schools and diversity hiring programs at universities. He even went after business behemoth Disney when its CEO opposed an educational bill, dubbed by critics as the “Don’t Say Gay” law.
Now, Florida lawmakers — with the support of the governor — are taking aim at the media, pushing legislation that would dramatically weaken legal standards in place for more than a half century that protect the freedom of the press to report on politicians and other powerful public figures.
The bill would make it easier to sue media outlets for allegations of defamation and make it harder for journalists to do their jobs by undermining the use of unnamed sources, an important reporting tool — particularly for media trying to pull back the curtain on the dealings of elected officials. Many First Amendment advocates and legal experts say it is clearly intended to muzzle reporters who serve as watchdogs for the public.
The Florida legislation (HB991) directly challenges a 1964 landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, New York Times v. Sullivan, that created a formidable standard — “actual malice” — in defamation disputes.
If passed, Florida’s anti-media bill would be the only one of its kind in the nation. But First Amendment advocates fear other states could follow and the legislation could clear the path for weakening press protections across the country.
Two conservative Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas, who is admired by DeSantis, and Neil Gorsuch, already have expressed in prior libel case rulings their interest to reevaluate that bedrock legal principle.
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
It’s the Miami Herald, Jake. Nothing but BS.
You mean like protecting them from libel and slander, e.g. protecting them from lies, fabrications, falsifications and malicious misrepresentation? Those sorts of protections of freedoms of the press?
They write like the bill is a bad thing?
We can’t have the media telling the truth, which runs directly counter to their business model.
What “media trying to pull back the curtain on the dealings of elected officials”?
The so-called “news” media covers up the Democrat Party corruption.
Freedom is slavery. When the left talks about freedom, that’s what they mean.
Fixed it.
Read the excerpt.
It comes across to me as so.much bullsqueeze.
Anytime unnamed sources are quoted the story is b.s
“legal standards in place for more than a half century” - “interest to reevaluate that bedrock legal principle.”
50 year old “bedrock” principles, eh? Inviolable wisdom from our founding fathers in the 60s? SOrry Miami Herald, you lie and you will lose.
The paper is the same as the DNC…
Like all newspapers…that no one reads anymore…
The problem is the GOP is useless at the federal level…owned by China
ONE MORE BIG LIE
The right to the press to maliciously lie about public figures is in jeapordy? What can the press do? Do we expect them to just do honest journalism? This is horrible!
“Many First Amendment advocates and legal experts say it is clearly intended to muzzle reporters who serve as watchdogs for the public.”
Translation: “We found a guy who agrees with our bias.” The law would not apply to actual journalists. Which is why they are worried.
Isn’t there some accepted notion s that the lady who owned the Washington Post squashed all sorts of stories about those clowns in DC, to protect them?
This is the view of those who want the freedom to own slaves.
Indeed, the major media outlets want their readership to be their slaves.
Yes. Those types of things. New York Times v Sullivan was wrongly decided. In a society supposedly based on checks and balances, what is essentially the unavailability of defamation leaves no check on agendized “reporting.” We’re an anomaly in common law countries and this proposed statute might provide an opportunity for SCOTUS to overturn Sullivan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.