Bills threatening freedom of speech fail

BY CINDY LANE SUN STAFF WRITER | clane@amisun.com

TALLAHASSEE – Florida lawmakers failed to pass two companion bills that would have changed Florida’s libel and defamation laws to remove longstanding protections of freedom of speech and of the press.

The proposed legislation, Senate Bill 1220 and House Bill 991, would have undermined the landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court defamation case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which established that public figures suing for defamation must prove the defendant acted with actual malice, either knowing published statements were false or recklessly disregarding the truth of the statements.

The difficult-to-prove standard is necessary, according to the court’s opinion, written by Justice William

J. Brennan Jr., because “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open,” including “vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

The proposed legislation would have established a presumption that statements by anonymous sources are false. For example, anything that the late FBI agent Mark Felt (Deep Throat) told Washington Post reporters as they uncovered the Watergate scandal during the Nixon administration would have been presumed false in a defamation action against the newspaper under the proposed legislation.

The legislation also would have extended the definition of “defamation” from traditional media to include any “utterance on the Internet,” such as individuals post- ing on social media.

The New York Times reported on May 4 that the House bill sponsor, Alex Andrade (R-Pensacola), said he intends to file a revised version of the bill in the 2024 Florida legislative session. Florida’s 2023 legislative session ended May 5.

The Times also reported that the legislation was unexpectedly opposed by supporters of Gov. Ron DeSantis, who held a roundtable on Feb. 7 during which he called for the Legislature to act on the issue. Right-wing media outlets were among the opponents of the resulting bills, arguing that “the legislation would harm all news media, including conservative outlets, and lead to an increase in frivolous and costly lawsuits,” according to the Times.