Florida legislators have identified a real problem, but they are responding to it with bills that would harm free speech.
Florida legislators have identified a real problem, but they are responding to it with bills that would harm free speech.
A pair of proposed laws in Florida would threaten free speech by opening up conservative media outlets to liability and a torrent of lawsuits. But the proposals come from an unlikely source: supposedly tort-reforming, small-government Republicans in the Florida legislature.
Ironically, the laws would threaten the very center-right outlets — including my family-owned radio station — these Republicans rely on to communicate their message and circumvent the chokehold that liberal media would otherwise have on the state. While the bills are intended to go after outlets such as the New York Times, conservative outlets would be hardest hit.
The sponsors of these bills, H.B. 757 and S.B. 1780, have downplayed their impact. But an examination of the legislators’ claims against the facts, and the text of the legislation, reveals a stark reality: These proposed laws, under the guise of fairness and accountability, threaten to erode fundamental conservative values and the very essence of free speech.
Here are some claims that state representative Alex Andrade and other supporters of the bills have made, followed by the facts.
Claim: The proposals would merely clarify existing law.
Representative Andrade frequently defends H.B. 757 as a mere clarification of or minor adjustment to current defamation statutes. This narrative crumbles under scrutiny. The proposed changes are not mere tweaks but seismic shifts that would undermine the foundational tenets of free speech. For instance, the bill’s introduction of a mechanism for criminal defendants to demand the retraction or correction of articles, even those accurately reporting not-guilty verdicts, would set a novel and dangerous precedent. The potential erasure of the historical record and the imposition of a European Union–style “right to be forgotten” would represent not just a departure from existing law but a leap into legal uncertainty, where the past is malleable and the truth subject to the whims of the aggrieved.
Claim: The legislation would not facilitate forum-shopping.
Contrary to Representative Andrade’s assurances, his proposals would ease the practice of forum-shopping, allowing plaintiffs to sue in any county with a “reasonable connection to the material circumstances related to” a case. This murky language would open the door to strategic litigation in jurisdictions known for plaintiff-friendly verdicts, which would effectively weaponize the legal system against conservative voices. Imagine a conservative blogger in the Panhandle being dragged into court in Broward County, a scenario ripe for exploitation by those seeking to silence dissent through legal and financial intimidation.
Claim: Early veracity hearings would be harmless procedural steps.
The proposed legislation’s requirement that judges hold “veracity hearings” within 60 days of a suit’s being filed is presented as a benign procedural step, akin to a summary judgment. This comparison is deeply flawed. Unlike summary judgments, which are rare and occur after the parties to a case have had a chance to investigate it, these new hearings would rush the parties to an early minitrial before a judge to decide the truthfulness of speech, a clear encroachment upon the right to a jury trial. This would not only distort the proper legal process but impose undue financial and emotional strain on defendants, often before the case properly begins, including by drastically shortening the amount of time for discovery.
Claim: Anonymous sources would not be compromised.
Andrade’s assertion that the bills respect the role of anonymous sources in journalism is misleading. By presuming malicious intent behind the use of anonymous sources, the legislation would effectively nullify decades of journalistic practice and methods that are essential for whistleblowers and investigative reporting.
This is exceptionally dangerous. This presumption against anonymity would not only chill investigative journalism but also signal a departure from our nation’s storied tradition of protecting the identity of those who expose wrongdoing.
Claim: Anti-SLAPP provisions would prevent abuse.
While existing anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) provisions are designed to protect speakers from frivolous lawsuits intended to silence them, these would be rendered toothless given the broad avenues for litigation opened by Andrade’s legislation. The additional hurdles to demonstrate that a lawsuit is frivolous would leave defendants vulnerable to bankrupting legal battles, despite the eventual possibility that a case is deemed meritless.
* * *
H.B. 757 and S.B. 1780 are well-intended. Conservatives are rightly frustrated by the way liberal outlets cover and portray them. But opening up every media outlet in the country to costly lawsuits isn’t the answer. The Left dominates the trial bar, and the past several years have shown how ready and willing liberal lawyers are to engage in “lawfare,” as epitomized by their efforts to bankrupt former president Donald Trump, silence him, and take him off the 2024 presidential ballot. These bills would put every conservative media outlet at risk of similar lawfare. The best chance conservatives have to fight back is through the same free and open media ecosystem that has allowed center-right outlets to thrive. The Florida legislature should reject these bills to maintain that free speech.