Ron DeSantis Wants to Roll Back the Freedom of the Press

[Frodo]

Starting with the elimination of the Supreme Court decision New York Times vs. Sullivan:

DeSantis wants to roll back press freedoms — with an eye toward overturning Supreme Court ruling
Florida Republicans are seeking to weaken laws protecting journalists.

Wouldn't it be nice have a Republican Party that advocates for all of the Constitution (First Amendment included) -and not just the Second Amendment, for the sake of consistency?  Why the cafeteria approach?  

[Roll Roons]

A major media outlet literally made up a false story to try and destroy his political future.

Besides, the media have constantly been giving Trump and MTG breathless coverage because it boosts their ratings. They can't be trusted.

[Torie]

It's fascinating that Ron is taking the text of a SCOTUS decision interpreting the reach of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, and is drafting a Florida state law that would define the terms SCOTUS used in the Sullivan case (making them what we call in the trade "terms of art" that no longer necessarily have any nexus with what one might find in the dictionary, truth now means lies, and lies means truth), in a manner so as to essentially eviscerate the case, and allow Floridians to sue the socks off the press vehicles that annoy them and send the lot of them to Bankruptcy court. Very creative. Why didn't I think of that?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Let's see what the communists are demanding:

Andrade’s proposal incorporates many of the elements DeSantis called for during the roundtable, including:

— allowing plaintiffs who sue media outlets for defamation to collect attorneys fees;

— adding a provision to state law specifying that comments made by anonymous sources are presumed false for the purposes of defamation lawsuits;

— lowering the legal threshold for a “public figure” to successfully sue for defamation;

— repealing the “journalist’s privilege” section of state law, which protects journalists from being compelled to do things like reveal the identity of sources in court, for defamation lawsuits.

All would be horrible for the future of journalism, and would open many cans of worms and overwhelm the judiciary.

Republicans are communists.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Of course he does. He has no respect for the Constitution, democracy, or rule of law.

[emailking]

I think it should be amended to make what the paparazzi does illegal. Otherwise, I think the journalistic protections in the 1st amendment are very importation for maintaining a free society. We also need a federal shield law.

[BG-NY]

I am no fan of DeSantis but this is hyperbole. The article doesn’t live up to its title.

[Landslide Lyndon]

A fascist, by any other word would smell as foul.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I am no fan of DeSantis but this is hyperbole. The article doesn’t live up to its title.

I won’t disagree that this sight is bad at hyperbolizing everything, but forcing Journalists to reveal anonymous sources in court is very very bad and definitely counts as restricted the freedom of the press

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I am no fan of DeSantis but this is hyperbole. The article doesn’t live up to its title.

I can give you a simple example for why this is terrible. Anonymous sources are "presumed false," but literally anyone who follows news knows that people speak to journalists under the condition of anonymity all the time.

Why are Republicans the party of trial lawyers suddenly?

[Ferguson97]

— repealing the “journalist’s privilege” section of state law, which protects journalists from being compelled to do things like reveal the identity of sources in court, for defamation lawsuits.

This is easily one of the most fascist things we've seen a politician propose.

[T'Chenka]

A major media outlet literally made up a false story to try and destroy his political future.

There are avenues for punishing the media outlet, presumably defamation lawsuits, that work in the systems we have in place already. Changing the laws to be more fascist isn't an appropriate avenue for dealing with this.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There is a context here to this.  The context is that when NYT v. Sullivan was decided, we had an investigative media.

In the 1990s I saw Rush Limbaugh and another guest on a news show (not his show) talking about the emerging Clinton sex scandals.  Rush discussed how the Republicans handle the scandal.  His advise was to let the media run with it and pick it up; they certainly would as it was newsworthy.  The media would do the heavy lifting because of the relevance of the story, regardless of its liberal bias.

That's not the media we have today.  Legacy media today will not investigate serious allegations against Democrats.  They deliberately squelched a story about the Biden Family's business dealings that implicated not just Hunter Biden, but Joe Biden as well.  Intel Officials condemned it as "Russian Disinformation" knowing that it wasn't.  This, after 4 years of the most biased coverage of a candidate in the history of the United States.  And the squelching was aided by Big Tech.  We all know that the laptop is real today, and we all know that it's not Russian Disinformation.  But a Legacy Media that behaves like this is not the media of NYT v. Sullivan.  

Overturning NYT v. Sullivan is not something I relish or advocate, but if it were to happen, it would reimpose a balance to news coverage that's not there now.  It would not be the coverage of the great muckrakers; indeed, it would be equally lame coverage for both sides, as reporters and publishers would have legitimate fear of more libel suits.  But we don't have an honest media today; we have a Legacy Media that does the bidding of the Democratic Party.  

[gerritcole]

There is a context here to this.  The context is that when NYT v. Sullivan was decided, we had an investigative media.

In the 1990s I saw Rush Limbaugh and another guest on a news show (not his show) talking about the emerging Clinton sex scandals.  Rush discussed how the Republicans handle the scandal.  His advise was to let the media run with it and pick it up; they certainly would as it was newsworthy.  The media would do the heavy lifting because of the relevance of the story, regardless of its liberal bias.

That's not the media we have today.  Legacy media today will not investigate serious allegations against Democrats.  They deliberately squelched a story about the Biden Family's business dealings that implicated not just Hunter Biden, but Joe Biden as well.  Intel Officials condemned it as "Russian Disinformation" knowing that it wasn't.  This, after 4 years of the most biased coverage of a candidate in the history of the United States.  And the squelching was aided by Big Tech.  We all know that the laptop is real today, and we all know that it's not Russian Disinformation.  But a Legacy Media that behaves like this is not the media of NYT v. Sullivan.  

Overturning NYT v. Sullivan is not something I relish or advocate, but if it were to happen, it would reimpose a balance to news coverage that's not there now.  It would not be the coverage of the great muckrakers; indeed, it would be equally lame coverage for both sides, as reporters and publishers would have legitimate fear of more libel suits.  But we don't have an honest media today; we have a Legacy Media that does the bidding of the Democratic Party.  

The constitutional basis on which Sullivan was decided isn’t contingent on whether The media is mucking enough dirt on their preferred opponents! But I’m no lawyer tho

[Badger]

Of course he does. He has no respect for the Constitution, democracy, or rule of law.

And more importantly, neither does the Republican voter base which he's pandering to.

[DrScholl]

He's desperately trying to win the primary, but doing everything he can to be as unappealing to persuadable voters as Trump is.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Totally shocking that someone who oversaw torture isn't in favor of freedom the press.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There is a context here to this.  The context is that when NYT v. Sullivan was decided, we had an investigative media.

In the 1990s I saw Rush Limbaugh and another guest on a news show (not his show) talking about the emerging Clinton sex scandals.  Rush discussed how the Republicans handle the scandal.  His advise was to let the media run with it and pick it up; they certainly would as it was newsworthy.  The media would do the heavy lifting because of the relevance of the story, regardless of its liberal bias.

That's not the media we have today.  Legacy media today will not investigate serious allegations against Democrats.  They deliberately squelched a story about the Biden Family's business dealings that implicated not just Hunter Biden, but Joe Biden as well.  Intel Officials condemned it as "Russian Disinformation" knowing that it wasn't.  This, after 4 years of the most biased coverage of a candidate in the history of the United States.  And the squelching was aided by Big Tech.  We all know that the laptop is real today, and we all know that it's not Russian Disinformation.  But a Legacy Media that behaves like this is not the media of NYT v. Sullivan.  

Overturning NYT v. Sullivan is not something I relish or advocate, but if it were to happen, it would reimpose a balance to news coverage that's not there now.  It would not be the coverage of the great muckrakers; indeed, it would be equally lame coverage for both sides, as reporters and publishers would have legitimate fear of more libel suits.  But we don't have an honest media today; we have a Legacy Media that does the bidding of the Democratic Party.  

The constitutional basis on which Sullivan was decided isn’t contingent on whether The media is mucking enough dirt on their preferred opponents! But I’m no lawyer tho

Well, I certainly agree with your statement.  And, yes, I agree with you that the meaning of the Constitution does not change because circumstances have changed.

My statement was not a Constitutional argument; it was a statement of what effect NYT v. Sullivan will have on the political climate today, and on the information climate today.  This decision was once a boon to the average citizen in that it allowed a free and independent Fourth Estate to dig for and publish truth about the actions of government officials of both parties that those officials would have preferred remained secret or obscure.  Today, it's a decision that covers for one party while it be open season on the other party.  That's a change that stems from the change in Legacy Media from a Free and Independent institution to an agent of the Democratic Party.

That fact cannot remain unspoken when we speculate what the effects would be in NYT v. Sullivan remaining vs. NYT v. Sullivan being overturned. 

The sincerity of the devotion to press freedom here ought to remain suspect.  They were fine with the government suppressing information on social media in the name of "disinformation" when it came to COVID-19 and the Biden Family's Business Relationships, but if someone wishes to slander Ron DeSantis with malice, they would offer him no recourse because he is a public figure.  Now I get that public officials are quite self-serving in taking the position DeSantis is taking right now, but the censorship in media today goes all one way.  Overturning NYT v. Sullivan isn't a cure for that, but the people here beating the drum as to the flaws in DeSantis's position ought to be honest and acknowledge the real change in Legacy Media and how it functions today vs. in 1980.

[Torie]

Here is an informative analysis of the implications of this proposed law.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/04/03/florida-libel-law-reform-bills-post-1-the-challenge-to-new-york-times-v-sullivan/#more-8229411

It moves the standard back from actual or reckless bad faith to a negligence standard.

The law if passed could serve as a vehicle for SCOTUS to reconsider NYT v Sullivan.

The article quotes Justice White's musings that negligent defamation might be actionable so one can clear their name (otherwise it would be difficult, because cases would be dismissed right out of the box for failure to show actual malice or recklessness, but damages would be limited to actual damages, rather than presumed damages, and preclude punitive damages.

[President Johnson]

Yet another of many examples how the Republican Party is turning away from democracy. In Texas they want the secretary of state to overturn certain county results, now this. Just be honest and write in your platform you want an illiberal, autocratic system. It's an obnoxious position to take, but would at least be honest.

[Person Man]

He continues to consolidate power.

[Christian Man]

This is why repealing the fairness doctrine with hindsight was a mistake.

[All Along The Watchtower]

A major media outlet literally made up a false story to try and destroy his political future.

[Greedo punched first]

The current SCOTUS might not have a majority for it, but DeathSantis wants to be president so he can appoint justices who want to do it.

[Orwell]

Ron DeSantis Killed 5 Hookers

RDK5H