Ron DeSantis wants to roll back freedom of the press

Who is this dude? All these nobodies somehow famous today. Go back to the everglades.

He will say and do anything to be POTUS. He's trying to appeal to the Trumptards still wandering catatonic in the debris of his yuge loss. But just enticing psychotic Haters isn't enough to make him President.

I hope he's another Santorum or Cruz, coming back every 4 years and becoming less and less popular.

Keep in mind that by definition, this only applies to things the press states that are not true. If a statement is true, this has no effect on it. So the NYT is including a freedom to lie as a component of "freedom of the press". Therein lies the problem.

A financial penalty for a news organization stating something that is factually untrue is very appropriate. If it causes the press to do additional fact checking on their own reports before publication, so be it.

There is a significant gray area. For instance, a news organization could print, on the basis of some anonymous interviews that some people it spoke with said that Matt Gaetz was involved in underage sex trafficking. (Well, he was hanging out with a guy who's now in prison for same....) Can he sue the NYTs just because he was never charged? It's not as straightforward as it first appears. Also "news" changes very rapidly in the course of an unfolding event. What is printed at 3 pm might turn out to have several factual errors, and might reappear with severe edits at the 6 pm printing. I wouldn't call any of the situations above "lies". The connotation of the word "lie" is that someone knows something to be untrue and says it anyway. From the dictionary: "an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive"

I think the Supreme Court would be hard put to revise its earlier ruling without opening a huge can of worms and endless litigation going nowhere.

I do hope he tries to roll back Rupert's freedom. End of de Santis coming up in five, four...

[quote]What is printed at 3 pm might turn out to have several factual errors, and might reappear with severe edits at the 6 pm printing.

What you are pointing out, unintentionally, is that news organizations should be waiting until 6pm to post their story, after they have done the editing and exhaustive fact checking. Right now, there's no financial disincentive for publishing things that aren't true. News media can just edit, often times stealthily, and then pretend as if it never happened. News media are corporations, and sometimes they need penalty to do the right thing when the market isn't working to keep them in check.

We live with a 24 hour news cycle now - a result of deliberate decisions made 30 years ago by cable television. No news organization is going to wait while other organizations get the scoop on a story. That's just wishful thinking.

Incidentally, there are hundreds of US newspaper headlines from November 1948 saying that Dewey defeats Truman. That was long before the 24 hour news cycle. We all understand that news organizations are capable of error, and we take the first iteration of a story with a grain of salt.

[quote]We live with a 24 hour news cycle now - a result of deliberate decisions made 30 years ago by cable television. No news organization is going to wait while other organizations get the scoop on a story.

I already said the market isn't working to keep these corporations in check, and thus the need for penalty.

Sorry, r10 . It just ain't ever gonna happen. (Penalties for providing news, that is). People are insatiably hungry for the next story. It took what, 4-6 months before news sources finally admitted that they had taken the Bush administration's lie about weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq at face value, and by then we were deep into an incredibly expensive war. But notice that DeSantis doesn't go over THOSE kinds of inaccuracies in news stories - only those stories involving politicians. The politician argument is always that such news stories damage their reputations. PLEASE! If the various well-researched articles about Lauren Bohbert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Donald Trump and others haven't damaged their reputations, then nothing that appears in an early bird edition of anything is going to do what the actual truth DIDN'T do.

Florida, America’s Banana Republic

Well if the SCOTUS says it’s ok then it’s legal.i

Punish punish punish— that’s his brand

r11, the corporations have to be held accountable. As you have admitted, the market isn't doing it, so people will need a recourse. As r13 correctly points out, it will have to be decided by the SC to what degree corporations have the right to lie. If the court says corporations can be held liable for lying, then there it is.

Well that's stupid of him to say. How does he think he's gonna do that, since a free press is part of our Constitution?