Newsmax scraps Florida Republican bill targeting ‘liberal media’

Newsmax joins a legion of conservative media outlets and celebrities who have killed two Florida Republican bills ostensibly aimed at reining in so-called “liberal media” by relaxing the definition of defamation. .

“Newsmax strongly opposes both bills, and any legislation that would make it easier for media companies to sue,” Newsmax CEO Chris Rudy said in a statement to The Daily Beast. “Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are among the most fundamental constitutional rights and must be zealously defended.” (Newsmax is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, and Mr. Ruddy is a Beach native and friend of former President Donald Trump.)

The bill (House Bill 757 and its Florida Senate bill SB 1780) would lower the standard for defamation in Florida, allowing public officials to sue journalists and media outlets if anonymous sources say something they believe to be false. It is what makes it possible. The bill passed a Florida House committee on a 14-7 vote Wednesday and heads to the Florida House of Representatives for a vote next.

Whatever the intent of the right-wing legislative effort, these conservative critics say it is an affront to the First Amendment and will ultimately harm center-right media.

State Rep. Alex Andrade, a self-described “conservative fighter,” proposed the House bill after it failed to pass last year. Last month, he told the Florida House Civil Justice Subcommittee that the media “does not exercise sufficient self-regulation” and that journalists “have no right to do anything that could harm someone’s reputation without a minimum of practicality.” He said he could not do something “reckless enough to publish the content.”

A companion Senate bill, SB 1780, was introduced by Republican state Sen. Jason Brodeur. Andrade and Brodeur’s offices did not respond to The Daily Beast’s requests for comment.

The House bill defines defamation as “any defamation, slander, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful act based on a single publication, exhibition, or statement,” but excluding statements of opinion. According to the bill’s language, this also extends to the use of anonymous sources. If an anonymous source makes a false statement published by a news organization, the news organization can be accused of “actual malice” for publishing the statement.

This bill calls for a “truth hearing,” in which a defendant must prove to a judge within 60 days of a lawsuit why the allegedly defamatory statement is true, in order to prove whether the statement is defamatory. will be introduced. The bill would also allow plaintiffs to file lawsuits in Florida counties if they believe their reputations have been harmed in Florida.

But the two bills, which advance Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ desire to rein in traditional media, have drawn surprisingly vocal criticism from a growing number of conservative news organizations, both locally and nationally. has been done.

“I think they’re shit,” Javier Manjarrez, journalist and publisher of the Fort Lauderdale-based right-wing outlet The Floridian, told The Daily Beast. He added that the proposed legislation would impact both local and national media, and that sources would be less likely to speak to reporters from all political lines.

“If they say something that may not be completely false but falls into a gray area, you as a journalist have a legitimate use of that content, but you can’t sue them because the source was anonymous.” “There is a possibility that this could happen,” Manjarez said. “If we start exposing anonymous sources, where are we in society in terms of journalism?”

Manjares said the law would only benefit civil trial lawyers, especially Andrade’s area of ​​law, because defamation lawsuits are expensive and time-consuming. These costs can rise to more than $20,000, he said, and there is no guarantee the defendants will be able to recover these costs.

“What are we raising all this money for?” Manjarez said. “Someone filed a lawsuit against you, but it didn’t meet the standard of malice, but could it be considered negligence or something close to it? Well, it’s not malice. .”

The Supreme Court defined “actual malice” in a landmark 1964 case. New York Times vs. Sullivan as a statement made “with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard for the truth.” This decision was taken to limit the ability of public officials to sue media outlets for defamation.

But as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote last year, it “allows news outlets and interest groups to make ‘false accusations against public figures with little impunity’ and pays a heavy price.” The court cited its previous opinion and expressed its intention to ask the court to reconsider its decision. ”

News organizations also have other tools for course correction, such as updating articles containing misinformation with corrections or retractions. Mr. Andrade also told Mr. Manjarez that he could already file a defamation lawsuit when they discussed a previous version of the bill last year.

However, these bills would lower the standard for what constitutes defamation and provide legal recourse for people who are simply dissatisfied with the content of an article.It could ultimately limit press freedom New York Post”‘s editorial board condemned the legislative effort in an editorial.

“Conservatives may support this madness to get back at the press, but they should also recognize that this law also makes it easier for leftists to mount lawsuits (or threats of lawsuits).” right wing to silence them,” the board wrote last week. “Many local conservative voices, as well as Florida’s all-red state Reps. Byron Donald and Cory Mills, think this is a terrible idea. They’re absolutely right. Change means a dangerous crackdown on free speech and freedom of the press.”

Andrade defended the bill Wednesday, rejecting criticism from his fellow conservatives.

“It’s shocking,” Andrade said, according to Florida Politics. “News organizations and their lawyers fear that legislation will be introduced that protects your reputation and recognizes that your reputation has value. [they] I don’t want that to pass. ” A week earlier, the lawmaker argued that critics were interpreting the bill’s language too broadly.

Andrade, who has also had a spat with the owner of a local conservative talk radio station, argued that the bill would be the “death” of right-wing talk by opening up on-air personalities to defamation lawsuits. In a controversial text exchange reported by Florida Politics, Andrade gave an “embarrassingly wrong” opinion about the bill and called the station owner a “liar.” The riot occurred after the lawmaker called Mills, a staunch conservative, “an incompetent from X.” post After federal lawmakers criticized the bill last year.

Still, Andrade’s defense has done little to allay concerns about the bill’s impact. Former U.S. Rep. Trey Ruddell, a radio host on Fox News Radio, told Fox News that the bill would help liberal lawyers shut down conservative media outlets.

“While some Republicans may think they’re going to sue and sue; new york times and washington post, BREAKING NEWS: Liberal trial lawyers plan to have a field day with center-right media in Florida,” Ruddell said. “If you sign this, it will destroy conservative media in this state.”