As expected, two Florida lawmakers have introduced defamation bills in the current legislative session, marking the third consecutive year of efforts to lower the bar for defamation claims against media organizations. While less extreme than earlier versions, these bills remain impractical and threaten journalistic protections.
Republican Representative J.J. Grow (District 23) sponsors HB 667, and State Senator Corey Simon (District 3) sponsors SB 752. The bills are nearly identical, with only minor differences.
Both proposals increase liability for online publishers and platforms by abolishing the “single publication rule.” A defamatory article is currently regarded as published only once, at its initial release. However, under the new law, the ongoing online presence of defamatory content would be classified as a new publication, effectively restarting the statute of limitations each time the content remains online after a court ruling. This could pave the way for repeated lawsuits against websites hosting third-party content.
News organizations already have established practices for correcting or removing defamatory content. However, the bills introduce mandatory takedown and permanent removal requirements. Alarmingly, liability may continue even after removal efforts. If a third-party media company fails to delete content after notification, it could still be held liable, even if it was not the original publisher. Removing content from the internet is notoriously difficult and costly, making compliance burdensome.
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of these bills is the elimination of the fair reporting privilege (FRP), which protects journalists who accurately report on official government proceedings, even if the information later proves to be false. If passed, the bills would invalidate FRP once a court determines that a news report contains false statements. This exposes media outlets to lawsuits even when reporting on police records, legal actions, or public documents.
For instance, if a news organization reports on an individual’s felony arrest based on police records, and the charges are dropped months later, the news outlet could be sued for libel if the original report remains online. Under current law, journalists are protected because the report was accurate at the time of publication.
While journalists should strive to update their reports, these bills unfairly shift responsibility from government agencies to the media. The potential impact is a chilling effect on public interest reporting. Investigative journalism that relies on public records could become too risky, and news outlets might avoid controversial topics or delete archives to limit liability.
A strong, independent press is essential to democracy; however, these bills threaten its foundation. As of this writing, HB 667 and SB 752 are progressing through legislative committees.
You must be logged in to post a comment.