You Cant Say Someone Is A Racist In Floriduh

[ZiprHead]

A new bill in Florida would mean you could get charged a fine of least $35,000 for calling someone racist.

The measure states that “an allegation that the plaintiff has discriminated against another person or group because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity constitutes defamation per se.”

Proving “actual malice” is one of the main requirements of a successful defamation case. And this bill would make that easier, setting up conditions for a fact-finder to automatically infer that actual malice took place after an accusation of discrimination.

In cases of alleged homophobia or transphobia, defendants charged with defamation are not allowed to use the plaintiff’s religious or scientific beliefs as part of their defense. If they are found liable for defamation, the defendant could be fined at least $35,000.
It would also make journalists who keep their sources anonymous automatically lose, making their words 'presumptively false'.

But, conservatives are free speech champions, right? Right?

 

[Elixir]

A new bill in Florida would mean you could get charged a fine of least $35,000 for calling someone racist.

The measure states that “an allegation that the plaintiff has discriminated against another person or group because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity constitutes defamation per se.”

Proving “actual malice” is one of the main requirements of a successful defamation case. And this bill would make that easier, setting up conditions for a fact-finder to automatically infer that actual malice took place after an accusation of discrimination.

In cases of alleged homophobia or transphobia, defendants charged with defamation are not allowed to use the plaintiff’s religious or scientific beliefs as part of their defense. If they are found liable for defamation, the defendant could be fined at least $35,000.
It would also make journalists who keep their sources anonymous automatically lose, making their words 'presumptively false'.

But, conservatives are free speech champions, right? Right?

Free Speech means you can speak freely, it doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay for it!

 

[ideologyhunter]

The article goes on to say that the proposed law is performative, unlikely to survive legal challenge, and just another way to stir up the Repub base. I don't know... Florida has already enacted so many wackadoodle laws on voting and education. But I can't imagine a trial based on this bill. It's adding 'racist' to existing law on libel and defamation -- you have to wonder what the evidence claims would be from the defense. (Of course I'm daydreaming about plaintiff being a Floridian who, say, went on about shithole countries and immigrants poisoning the nation's blood, etc. etc.) I haven't been in that state since 1977, and I don't miss it a bit.
My state -- Ohio -- has an out of control Republican statehouse. We have pols who would copy cat this nonsense in a heartbeat.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Recall that truth is defense against defamation.

 

[Derec]

Recall that truth is defense against defamation.

"Racist" is one of the most, if not the most, overused words in today's discourse. I've seen people claiming those opposed to racial preferences were "racist".

 

[Swammerdami]

A new bill in Florida would mean you could get charged a fine of least $35,000 for calling someone racist.
. . .
But, conservatives are free speech champions, right? Right?

The "at least $35,000" caught my eye. Aren't penalties usually phrased as "at most"? (Or "At least ___ but not to exceed"?)
So I clicked to see the bill's text:

(c) A prevailing plaintiff for allegations under this subsection is, in addition to all other damages, entitled to statutory damages of at least $35,000

WTF does this phrasing even mean?

Recall that truth is defense against defamation.

"Racist" is one of the most, if not the most, overused words in today's discourse. I've seen people claiming those opposed to racial preferences were "racist".

Self-awareness is a virtue. What's your stance on labeling those not happy with Netanyahu's massacres "anti-Semitic" or even "genocidal"?

 

[marc]

So Florida wants to make believe it is a revision of the 'perfect' neighborhood in 'Leave it to Beaver', by simply not allowing anyone to talk about racism, gay people, immigrants or anything else. They are probably trying to work out how to keep black people out of view, but make it sound like freeeedom!!

Spoiler: Pleasantville trailer

 

[Gospel]

Recall that truth is defense against defamation.

"Racist" is one of the most, if not the most, overused words in today's discourse. I've seen people claiming those opposed to racial preferences were "racist".

I agree. I've observed individuals who oppose playing the 'race card' invoking the 'reverse racism card'.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Recall that truth is defense against defamation.

"Racist" is one of the most, if not the most, overused words in today's discourse. I've seen people claiming those opposed to racial preferences were "racist".

If we did a search at IIDB (or US internet in general), I'd imagine "woke" would arise more than "racist".

Regarding legislation, how does this even work? Some black person screaming racial slurs at white people, and Derec owes the state $35,000 for calling them racist?

 

[ideologyhunter]

The cyberculture could come up with synonyms for 'racist' faster than Florida pols could draft bills.

1) Nonwoke AF....righties wouldn't know what to do with that one. They'd consider it a compliment. They'd have to look up the AF.
2) Basic Bilbo...maybe too fringey, but they'd have to do some historical reading to get it.
3) ExtraKlan...They've have a bill drafted in one day, so it wouldn't last long. Wouldn't have to.
4) Bad Whitey...They're never sure if Bad = 'bad' or 'real good'. Keep the lame-os guessing.

I'm sure the youngsters know the cool slang of today's American youth better than I do. Just a suggestion.

 

[Jarhyn]

You know I can't help but think about putting out a sign that says "no white people" at a business without making any sort of actual enforcement, and then going after everyone (mostly white people) who call that "racist" (even though it is) just to make clear how nonsensical the law is. Assuming it passes. Which it may.

 

[Politesse]

Recall that truth is defense against defamation.

Not if you have "bad words" defined as defamation regardless of context.

 

[Gospel]

I understand the bill and agree with it, particularly if it doesn't apply to accusers who have evidence, even if said evidence is found to be not sufficient to win a legal case. It seems reasonable to impose fines on those who wrongfully accuse others of racism without any evidence. Additionally, it would be beneficial to have a law that addresses false 911 reports, especially those based on unfounded suspicions without evidence, particularly when the evidence is a protected class.

 

[Gospel]

AS far the protected speech part. I don't see why accusation of racism is not protected speech. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. If one perspective, rooted in religious belief, is deemed protected speech, then it's reasonable to argue that holding a belief about that perspective being bigoted should also be protected speech.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I understand the bill and agree with it, particularly if it doesn't apply to accusers who have evidence, even if said evidence is found to be not sufficient to win a legal case. It seems reasonable to impose fines on those who wrongfully accuse others of racism without any evidence.

But do not existing defamation laws cover this?

 

[Gospel]

But do not existing defamation laws cover this?

Yes, however the aim of this measure is not to protect all Americans from defamation, but to shield white Americans from abuse of the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Recall that truth is defense against defamation.

But how do you prove someone is racist?

Same reason we don't permit accusations of lying on here--it's pretty much impossible to prove.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A new bill in Florida would mean you could get charged a fine of least $35,000 for calling someone racist.
. . .
But, conservatives are free speech champions, right? Right?

The "at least $35,000" caught my eye. Aren't penalties usually phrased as "at most"? (Or "At least ___ but not to exceed"?)
So I clicked to see the bill's text:

(c) A prevailing plaintiff for allegations under this subsection is, in addition to all other damages, entitled to statutory damages of at least $35,000

WTF does this phrasing even mean?

(Not a lawyer, but I do know what they mean) Normally, in civil matters you sue for the actual harm inflicted--thus you must establish that not only were the defendant's actions wrong but that you suffered harm as a result. Some offenses have statutory damages written into the law--in such a situation merely establishing the wrong is enough, you can claim the statutory damages without having to prove you were harmed. This is useful in situations where the act is clearly harmful but the harm is diffuse and hard to measure, or where the harm per offense is too small--the legislature simply defines a minimum value for the harm. AFIAK, it is normally statutory damages or actual damages, not both. (An example of the harm being too small is copyright. What's their actual loss in a copyright case? Something under the cost of the item in question.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Recall that truth is defense against defamation.

"Racist" is one of the most, if not the most, overused words in today's discourse. I've seen people claiming those opposed to racial preferences were "racist".

If we did a search at IIDB (or US internet in general), I'd imagine "woke" would arise more than "racist".

Regarding legislation, how does this even work? Some black person screaming racial slurs at white people, and Derec owes the state $35,000 for calling them racist?

No. Derec owes the black person, not the state.

 

[Gospel]

No. Derec owes the black person, not the state.

Ah, in light of this auspicious turn of events, let us hasten the passage of this bill, my good fellows!