Here’s the text of SB 1780: “Defamation, False Light, and Unauthorized Publication of Name or Likenesses; Providing that provisions concerning journalist’s privilege do not apply to defamation claims when the defendant is a professional journalist or media entity; specifying that certain persons may not be considered public figures for purposes of certain actions; creating a presumption that a statement by an anonymous source is presumptively false for purposes of a defamation action; providing that a public figure does not need to show actual malice to prevail in a defamation action in certain circumstances, etc.” Under SB 1780, anyone in these circumstances wouldn’t have to prove actual malice, which was a standard requirement for defamation suits following the 1964 US Supreme Court case New York Times v Sullivan.
The Guardian renders the matter thusly: “SB 1780, would make accusing someone of being homophobic, transphobic, racist or sexist, even if the accusation is true, equivalent to defamation, and punishable by a fine of at least $35,000. If passed, the bill would severely limit and punish constitutionally protected free speech in the state.” Maybe. In light of the concept of defamation, this is not a slam dunk free speech deal. As critical as I am of the concept of defamation, I am sympathetic to what the Florida legislature is attempting to do here: if those out to destroy the reputation of their critics by smearing them as “transphobes” were not protected speech, maybe the authoritarians and reactionaries would be less inclined to damage the reputations and livelihoods of those with whom they disagree.
Note this bit from the The Guardian rendering: “even if the accusation is true.” In addition to the fact that accusing somebody of being “transphobic” is a smear that may damage his reputation and cause him to suffer harm (such as losing his career), determining whether a person is transphobic is not something that can be shown to be true (or false). This is because “transphobia” is a word invented by reactionaries who want to intimidate and marginalize those who are critical of gender ideology and all that comes with it, for example the practice of subjecting vulnerable and mentally ill individual to radical disabling cosmetic surgery for no objective medical purpose. Branding somebody “transphobic” is the equivalent of calling those who oppose fascism “fascophobic”—in a world where such a smear wouldn’t be laughed out of the room, a distinction that ought to scare the hell out of you.
The power of the legislation is in signifying that a smear not subject to a truth test (analogous to being accused of being a witch or labeled crazy) is nonetheless designed to heap upon him disrepute and may in fact cause reputational damage—which it is clearly intended to do. We live in a world where suffering material consequences for criticizing gender ideology or antiracism is a very real possibility. If we’re going to keep around this concept of defamation, then it is reasonably applied to attempts to destroy a person’s career and good standing for criticizing irrational beliefs and harmful practices. It would be one thing if it was just name calling. But it’s not. Organizations discipline and even fire employees accused of transphobia.
And the direction is towards legal consequences for being the thing one is smeared as. In European countries, the police arrest individuals for saying “transphobic” things. Think about that. The government defines criticism of a pernicious ideology as a criminal offense, thus staking out the content of a word invented to prevent opposition to the ideology by punishing the critics. There is no recourse. You are accused of such and, if it sticks, you can lose your livelihood. That’s totalitarian. Is it really that different if a corporation punishes an employee smeared with a made-up word? Why are powerful institutions doing the bidding of an ideological movement? Doesn’t the law exist to protect individuals from institutional harm? The promise of legislation like this is to prevent our slide into totalitarianism.
Also, the bill isn’t “anti-gay.” This is not the first time the media has pulled this stunt. Remember “Don’t Say Gay”? That characterization of HB 1557 was false. SB 1780 doesn’t criminalize homosexuality, etc. The bill is seeking to protect individuals from reputational damage by the imposition of a de facto system that presently a priori reduces unfavored opinion to a form of prejudice for which there are material consequences. Words like “transphobia” and “Islamophobia” are designed to establish their own truth—as well as the witchfynders who will legitimize the smear.
Do I support the law? I’m still mulling it over. I want to see a law that forbids institutions and organizations from disciplining in any fashion any employee who criticizes any ideology. Such a law promises to obviate the need for a revised defamation law. But I do understand the motive behind the law and why progressive media outlets like The Guardian write entirely uncharitable and inaccurate stories about it. They want to empower authoritarians and reactionaries to destroy the lives of those who criticize their irrational and destructive ideologies and practices. Such a law may be necessary to disempower these fascists.
* * *
Book Riot is reporting that “another state has entered the ranks of those introducing bills to combat the rampant book banning in public schools and libraries.” Washington now joins New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. House Bill 2331 was introduced by Representative Monica Jurado Stonier and is cosponsored by several other state representatives, including Nicole Macri, Lauren Davis, Gerry Pollet, Julia Reed, and Alex Ramel. There is a companion bill in the state Senate as well, SB 6208.
In other words, if any of the various paraphilias—autogynephilia, autopedophilia, etc.—are deemed a feature of a “legally protected class,” then communities cannot remove hyper-sexualized content from public school libraries deployed there to groom children for cult induction. Pause for a moment to reflect on the terrible truth that gender ideology is becoming for many states the official religion in a country that explicitly forbids theocracy. One more clear signal that the Republic is near over, and that the New Fascism is ascendant.
freedom and reason 