We're not sure about the purpose of Senate Bill 230, recently filed at the Ledge. Other than possibly using the media disaster between those Kentucky school boys and the aging drum-beater to get some front-page pub back in this state.
State Sen. Kim Hammer told the papers that the confrontation between the grinning school boys and the Indian activist in Washington back in January was behind his SB 230, which would make it easier for plaintiffs to win lawsuits claiming "false light" or defamation.
SB 230 would essentially reduce the burden of proof in those lawsuits, among other things, including even worse things. Such as allowing plaintiffs to make claims "generally," so cases aren't easily dismissed. Laws on the books require plaintiffs to be specific with facts. Imagine that.
John Tull, who represents the Arkansas Press Association, says the bill could "chill free speech" even when the speech is truthful. Other media types oppose the bill, too.
There are lots of legal rabbit holes in this story, and it's hard not to go down several, including standards of proof and pleading standards. But maybe the simplest reason to oppose the bill: The truth will out. Without more help from the Arkansas Legislature.
The paper quoted Sen. Hammer saying there was a "national trend" of irresponsible reporting. Including the mix-up at the Lincoln Memorial a few months back when those kids, on a field trip, had the nerve to smile when a drum-banging activist walked up in their midst. A 10-second video clip made the rounds in the hours after the confrontation, such that it was, and the edited clip made it seem the kids were aggressors. When, it turns out, they certainly were not.
What does this have to do with Arkansas?
"I think what I've identified--and what I'm referring to--is the national trend that outlets can say what they want to say with no fact base behind it and get a free pass," Sen. Hammer said.
Okay, there's a lot to unpack there: First, what free pass? The Washington Post has a lawsuit on its hands. The folks who tweeted their displeasure with the high school boys immediately following the incident fell over themselves apologizing later. Those who criticized the kids and never apologized have a credibility problem.
And outside this case, there are plenty of laws on the books already about libel, slander, defamation. Irresponsibility comes with a price.
As far a national trend of the papers saying what they want, why, that's been the case since before there was an Arkansas, or even a United States of America. And that idea was codified in the Constitution circa 1787.
It seems to us that misinformation is better fought with truth, not more laws. No less an authority than the United States Supreme Court has ruled, several times, that even lies were protected speech. See U.S. v. Alvarez.
The way to fight stories "with no fact base" is not with new laws, but with better information.
Eric Besson's story in Monday's paper also says SB 230 would allow plaintiffs to receive damages for pain and suffering without proving they suffered damages. It seems this bill has more than one bad idea in it.
Let's not. Instead, our legislators should concentrate on other matters. Like anything to do with Arkansas and common sense.
Editorial on 03/06/2019