The Florida First Amendment Foundation is raising questions about Gov. Ron DeSantis’ recent efforts to prod state lawmakers to make it easier for Floridians to sue media organizations for defamation.
DeSantis held a roundtable discussion earlier this month with libel law experts and people who say they were harmed by media reporting. During the event, attorney Elizabeth Locke said the use of anonymous sources and the lack of opportunities for citizens to make meaningful comments in the media rebutting allegations against them are a cause for concern.
But Bobby Block, executive director of the First Amendment Foundation, expressed concern that Florida officials may try to turn back the clock on legal precedents that protect criticisms of public officials and public figures. Defamation law is overshadowed by the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan U.S. Supreme Court decision, which requires the proof of “actual malice” for a public official to prevail in a defamation lawsuit against a media company.
“It is important to remember that any move against the ‘actual malice’ standard in NYT v. Sullivan would impact not just newspapers and broadcasters, but conservative talk shows, bloggers, citizens who criticize officials on their Facebook pages and politicians as well who have taken to social media to attack other politicians,” Block told the Florida Record in an email.
It’s not certain at this point if the foundation would support a lawsuit to fight proposals that would lower legal protections that foster robust speech about public officials and public figures, Block said.
“It’s difficult to forecast what we might do without seeing the details of the legislation first, but suffice to say the First Amendment Foundation would vigorously defend Floridians’ rights to free speech and a free press,” Block said.
Although DeSantis and others who say defamation law is stacked in favor of the news media, Block questions whether they are actually on the side of the “little guy.”
“This seems more about chilling free speech in order to protect the powerful at the expense of vigorous political debate,” he said.
In addition, critics of the actual malice standard claim to it tends to bar ordinary citizens from filing defamation suits against media organizations. But the First Amendment Foundation notes that the higher bar of proving “actual malice” – that is, a journalist files a story despite having serious doubts about its truthfulness – applies only to plaintiffs who are public figures.