(WASHINGTON)— PEN America released this following statement in response to President Trump’s defamation lawsuit against publisher Penguin Random House and The New York Times, in which the president accused them of “spreading false and defamatory content” to damage his 2024 presidential candidacy. It follows other recent lawsuits and legal threats against the media, with the goal of chilling reporting that the administration deems unfavorable. 

“President Trump’s defamation lawsuit against Penguin Random House and The New York Times—and by extension against a free and independent press—underscores his dangerous pattern of seeking to punish any publisher that questions his narrative in hopes of draining financial resources, instilling fear, and deterring coverage he doesn’t like. This latest lawsuit is striking in its hypocrisy, and continues the broader goal of creating a climate of fear and retaliation while claiming to champion free speech. The president has assumed the role of policing the press, working to cancel truthful reporting while casting himself as the victim,” said Tim Richardson, program director for Journalism and Disinformation. “This kind of weaponized litigation not only threatens an independent press but also erodes the foundation of the First Amendment. We stand firmly with the reporters and publishers that continue to hold our elected leaders accountable in defense of free expression, even in the face of escalating threats and retaliation.”

President Trump filed the $15 billion defamation lawsuit this week against The New York Times, four of its reporters, and Penguin Random House, claiming their articles and a book were published with “actual malice” to damage his business, political standing, and 2024 presidential candidacy. The suit alleges the reporting was timed to inflict “maximum electoral damage” and caused him “enormous” financial and reputational harm.

About PEN America

PEN America stands at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide. We champion the freedom to write, recognizing the power of the word to transform the world. Our mission is to unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible. Learn more at pen.org.

Contact: Suzanne Trimel, STrimel@PEN.org, 201-247-5057

Source:https://pen.org/press-release/president-trumps-lawsuit-seeks-to-punish-publishers-and-the-press-for-questioning-his-narratives/

“The bill is an aggressive and blatantly unconstitutional attempt to rewrite defamation law in a manner that protects the powerful from criticism by journalists and the public,” said one attorney.

by Emma Camp, from Reason.com

A legislative ally of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis introduced a bill in the Florida House on Tuesday that would remove many of the legal protections against defamation lawsuits established in the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan. The new bill is yet another attempt by DeSantis, an aggressive critic of defamation law, to curb First Amendment protections in Florida.

Introduced by Rep. Alex Andrade (R—Pensacola), the bill would make sweeping changes to the standards for pursuing a defamation claim against a public figure. The law would narrow the definition of a public figure by excluding persons whose notoriety arises solely from “defending himself or herself publicly against an accusation,” giving an interview on a subject, public employment (other than elected or appointed office), or “a video, an image, or a statement uploaded on the Internet that has reached a broad audience.”

“At the end of the day, it’s our view in Florida that we want to be standing up for the little guy against some of these massive media conglomerates,” DeSantis said in a February 7 roundtable event on the subject, adding that journalism “really chills, I think, people’s willingness to want to participate” in public discussion.

DeSantis has strongly criticized New York Times v. Sullivan, a 1964 Supreme Court case establishing the actual malice standard for defamation claims against public figures. Following Sullivan, public officials could not successfully sue for libel or defamation without proving that the false statements made against them were made with “actual malice”—meaning “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

Andrade’s bill explicitly defies Sullivan by establishing that the “actual malice” standard will not be required to prove defamation “when the allegation does not relate to the reason for his or her public status.” Further, the bill also significantly expands the circumstances under which a fact finder can infer actual malice, such as when an allegation is “inherently implausible” or “There are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity” of the allegation.

Full Post by Emma Camp @ https://reason.com/2023/02/22/ron-desantis-wants-to-rewrite-defamation-law/