A new bill in Florida would make accusations of Transphobia would be treated as defamation. The defendant could not “prove truth” by citing a plaintiff’s “scientific or religious beliefs.”


A new bill introduced in Florida, Senate Bill 1780, would make accusations of discrimination towards transgender people “defamation per se,” with accusers on the hook for a hefty $35,000 penalty. Critically, the bill states that if you are sued for defamation under the statutes, you cannot use the defendant’s scientific or religious beliefs or expression to prove that they are acting in a discriminatory fashion towards transgender people. These and other provisions would make it so that accusations of transphobic discrimination would be nearly impossible to prove, and would leave anyone making the accusation on the hook for damages.

The bill outlines several methods and protections for individuals accused of transphobic actions to sue their accusers. For example, one clause stipulates that a person cannot be deemed a public figure due to their association with “a video, image, or statement uploaded on the internet that has reached a large audience.” This implies that if someone is captured on video engaging in discriminatory behavior against transgender individuals, such as denying entry or using slurs, this viral content cannot establish their status as a “public figure.” Consequently, this makes it easier for them to initiate lawsuits against those who accuse them of transphobia, regardless of what the video shows.

Most importantly, the bill contains a section that would make allegations that someone is operating in a discriminatory fashion towards “race, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity” defamation per se, meaning accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, or transphobia could result in hefty lawsuits. For homophobia and transphobia, there is an additional provision that would make lawsuits much more likely to succeed: defendants could not cite a plaintiff’s “constitutionally protected religious expression or beliefs” or a plaintiff’s “scientific beliefs” to prove the truth of their allegation of homophobia or transphobia.

read more: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/florida-bill-would-make-accusations?publication_id=994764&post_id=140479556

  • A Phlaming Phoenix@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thought these guys were big on free speech. This sounds like abridging expression to me.

    Don’t we already have crimes like slander and libel that cover when people do this and it’s not true? Thus, this law would widen that to include saying it when it is true?

    • Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re putting way too much thought into it.

      It’s so the chuds can tell their hooting crowds they’re making it illegal for somebody to call them transphobic just because they said and did transphobic stuff.

      Pretty sure that’s the start and end of their strategy.

  • Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Protected hate is a very conservative thing nowadays. It’s because they’re all cowards.

    • Roopappy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Breaking news: Florida passes law that outlaws life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

  • Bloobish [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    One of my joys is the knowledge that Florida will likely collapse into the sea during my lifetime and also economically collapse as the snowbirds all die off

  • jackpot@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    this works in the inverse, ‘i fired you because my religious beliefs from my one-man religion say i have to’

  • Neato@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Defamation is so difficult to convict on in the US because of 1st amendment protections. This new statute is DOA once a non-shitass court looks at it.

    • pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yup. Defamation case law has set an incredibly high bar in the United States. There’s no way this is going to stand up in court, assuming it even passes.

    • Stillhart@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem here is that it will be quite some time before the Supreme Court is non-shitass.

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Weird how hexbears act pro lgbtq while at the same time are defensive of some of the most trans and homophobic dictatorships on earth

  • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So basically a “you can’t sue or I’m rubber and your glue” bill to go with the “don’t say gay bill”. Imagine needing to put this much time into bills like this because you can’t stop your hate from getting you in trouble and you would rather attack marginalized groups than do any actual governing.