Trending Topics

Calling Someone Racist, Homophobic or Transphobic In Florida Could Result In Legal Troubles Under a New GOP Measure 

In Florida, those making accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia could get slapped with a hefty lawsuit. That’s if state lawmakers push through a measure that would make it easier to bring a defamation case against someone who makes those types of accusations, raising concerns about threats to freedom of speech. 

Filed in the 2024 legislative session in Florida, SB 1780 has been labeled as a defamation bill that has sparked controversy and received pushback from many Democrats. One major provision would require those accused of defamation to pay fines of up to $35,000. 

“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,” the bill states. The bill goes further: It also proposes to block a journalist from using anonymous sources, which could facilitate the process to sue a reporter for defamation. 

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was booed at a vigil for victims of the Jacksonville Dollar General shooting
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was booed at a vigil for victims of the Jacksonville Dollar General shooting. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Critics and First Amendment advocates argue the bill is an attempt to chill free speech, part of Gov. Ron DeSantis and other Republicans’ efforts to fight against members of the media who publicly criticize government officials.

“More attempts to chill free speech in the ‘free’ State of Florida,” state Rep. Anna Eskamani, an Orlando Democrat, said in a post on X. Journalist and transgender rights activist Erin Reed told the Tallahassee Democrat, “the bill would tremendously chill speech in Florida.”

DeSantis, who is lagging in the GOP presidential primary race, has long been critical of the media and pledged to make it easier to sue news outlets. During a roundtable discussion in 2023, the Republican governor expressed his intention to simplify the process of suing media outlets that he said were “society’s ‘leading purveyors of disinformation,’” the Tallahassee Democrat reported

As it stands now, the defamation bill hasn’t gained any traction yet since it was filed in early January by state Sen. Jason Brodeur, a Republican who represents constituents in Seminole and part of Orange counties. 

The proposal also would prohibit using someone’s public statements about race, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, as well as their scientific or religious beliefs, as evidence for the defendant in a defamation claim. “A defendant cannot prove the truth of an allegation of discrimination with respect to sexual orientation or gender identity by citing a plaintiff’s constitutionally protected religious expression or beliefs,” according to the bill. 

Equality Florida denounced the bill, labeling it a “defamation censorship bill” part of “Governor DeSantis’ effort to chill any free speech that is critical of the government, punish the media, and reverse Supreme Court precedent.”

Meanwhile, Brodeur’s measure has been linked to another bill in the Florida House. A similar measure, HB 757, was recently approved by the Civil Justice Subcommittee in the Florida House. That means the House bill could move through the 2024 state Legislature if lawmakers approve it in other committees. 

Courts generally consider allegations of personal dislike or hatred based on characteristics like race, sex, etc., as opinions, not defamation, according to a Florida Senate legislative analysis, which added: “However, courts typically hold that a false allegation that a person discriminated against a person or group of people on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or membership in another class amounts to defamation, as it is more of a factual assertion, the truth of which can be proven or disproved.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida has expressed opposition to HB 757. The group argues that it could chill speech of individuals or entities that “criticize public officials,” and could “make it easier for public officials to sue for defamation by requiring the fact-finder to infer actual malice if the information is based wholly on an unverified anonymous source.”

Back to top