DeSantis Defends Florida Bills Cracking Down on Press and Use of Anonymous Sources

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) defended new defamation legislation presented in both the Florida House and Senate on Thursday, arguing “there’s no way you could ever have a defamation action” under current libel laws and connecting anonymous sources with “actual malice” in reporting.

During a presser, DeSantis was asked to address criticism of the measures. “We are hearing concerns that the defamation bills you support governor would chill free speech, particularly for social media, bloggers, and people at public meetings, and encourage frivolous lawsuits. So how would your administration keep that from happening?” a reporter asked.

“Well, I think what the bill is doing now is basically saying that if somebody is defamed so someone publishes or says something, this is pretty much going to be written, they publish something that defames you. So it’s false, that if they’re using anonymous sources, then that can be a presumption that that was done with malice, because if not, then there’s no way you could ever have a defamation action,” DeSantis replied, adding:

I think what’s happened is particularly corporate media outlets have relied on anonymous sources to smear people. And I just think that that’s something that is fundamentally wrong. And so, again, these are false statements of fact that defame people.

The question is, if you bring a suit, how are you able to show that that was malicious? And I think the fact that it was anonymous could be a presumption that that’s the case. And so I think I don’t think it’s going to cause much of a difference in terms of free speech. I do think it may cause some people to not want to put out things that are false, that are that are smearing somebody’s reputation.

And, you know, I think I think people can make a judgment about how they view that. But but I think to have a standard that’s impossible to meet for for people, particularly people who are considered public figures, who aren’t even in office or just maybe get involved in some, they are at a school board meeting or something. You know, I think that that that’ll be that will be good.

Critics of the bills argue that the measures shift “the burden from the plaintiff to the defendant, since the plaintiff does not need to affirmatively show that the claim is false.” The non-profit organization, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, added, “As such, it contradicts well–established Supreme Court precedent.”

The group, which provides free legal services to journalists in need, argued the bills would “also make it easier to sue for defamation when challenging statements by confidential or unknown sources. The House bill creates a presumption of falsity for statements by “anonymous” sources (presumably confidential as well as unknown).”

Proving intended “actual malice” has been a standard in defamation cases regarding public figures dating back to Supreme Court’s 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling, which states a defamatory claim must not only be proven to be false, but that it was known to be false or made with a “reckless disregard for the truth.” The Florida bills seek to lower that threshold and link the use of anonymous sources with the intent of “actual malice” into law.

Of course, such a change would affect media outlets across the political spectrum. Mediaite’s editor in chief Aidan McLaughlin pointed out back in early February, given the various legal challenges facing Fox News, Newsmax and OAN, “The irony of DeSantis’s criticism of US free speech protections is that conservative outlets he favors would be the first to face severe consequences if the actual malice standard was overturned.”

Watch the full clip above.