Florida’s Republican-controlled Legislature may give legal immunity to a gun company that has been raining campaign contributions on politicians in Tallahassee.
Hi so I looked at the bill but I don’t see “false statement.” Only “false information.” I wonder if they went back and changed it? But I do not see it stricken anywhere.
A food libel law is like a special defamation law just for agricultural companies. And when an agricultural company sues someone under a food libel law, they only have the prove that the defendant disseminated "false information."
And "false information" doesn't actually mean that something was provably false. Florida's food libel law, for instance, defines false information as "information which is not based on reliable, scientific facts and reliable, scientific data which the disseminator knows or should have known to be false."
Under that definition, someone talking about a theory or a hypothesis could be considered to be spreading "false information."
This is one of the ways (not the only one) that food libel laws make it easier for agricultural companies to win defamation suits (vs if they had to sue under a general theory of defamation, like almost everyone else.)
Senate Bill 290 & House Bill 433 don't change this part of Florida's food libel law. What they do is expand the kind of speech that falls under the statute.
Under the law right now, agricultural corporations can only bring a defamation case under Florida's food libel law for criticism of *perishable* food products (ie: fresh fruits and veggies that can spoil quickly.)
But SB 290 & HB 433 would expand that so they could also sue over criticism of non-perishable food products (like sugar) and of farming industry practices (like sugarcane burning).
Thank you! Yes it clarifies perfectly (I am brain dead from the amount of work I have on my plate for this session but where it applies to education and healthcare). Could barely string sentences together by last Thursday 😩
Amazing: It took the subcommittee nearly four hours to approve 13-4 a shield law for Sig Sauer to sell its defective product in Florida. This proposal, if passed into law, will become a legal precedent for its lawyers to argue in cases throughout the US in the liability suits that are sure to come as the company won't try fix the problem. (Looks like the four dissidents were 2Ds and 2 Rs, which is interesting especially since the 3 members from Duval, 2Rs and one D, all voted in favor. Guess Kim Daniels ignored the Voice from On High not to vote fora defective consumer product.)
Have you read up on HB 433? Looks like they hid something in Section 47 that threatens free speach…
Wrote about it a couple times in December:
Florida politicians may give Big Sugar legal power to go after activists and silence critics (Dec. 18, 2025)
https://jasongarcia.substack.com/p/florida-politicians-may-give-big
They said they wanted to help farmers. They really wanted to hurt environmentalists.
https://jasongarcia.substack.com/p/they-said-they-wanted-to-help-farmers
Hi so I looked at the bill but I don’t see “false statement.” Only “false information.” I wonder if they went back and changed it? But I do not see it stricken anywhere.
I might be misunderstanding the question but lemme see if this addresses it:
In a regular defamation lawsuit, one of the things that a plaintiff has to prove is that the defendant made a "false statement" of fact. Here's a good explainer: https://www.pbs.org/standards/media-law-101/defamation/
A food libel law is like a special defamation law just for agricultural companies. And when an agricultural company sues someone under a food libel law, they only have the prove that the defendant disseminated "false information."
And "false information" doesn't actually mean that something was provably false. Florida's food libel law, for instance, defines false information as "information which is not based on reliable, scientific facts and reliable, scientific data which the disseminator knows or should have known to be false."
Under that definition, someone talking about a theory or a hypothesis could be considered to be spreading "false information."
Here's the statute as it exists today: https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0865/Sections/0865.065.html
This is one of the ways (not the only one) that food libel laws make it easier for agricultural companies to win defamation suits (vs if they had to sue under a general theory of defamation, like almost everyone else.)
Senate Bill 290 & House Bill 433 don't change this part of Florida's food libel law. What they do is expand the kind of speech that falls under the statute.
Under the law right now, agricultural corporations can only bring a defamation case under Florida's food libel law for criticism of *perishable* food products (ie: fresh fruits and veggies that can spoil quickly.)
But SB 290 & HB 433 would expand that so they could also sue over criticism of non-perishable food products (like sugar) and of farming industry practices (like sugarcane burning).
Thank you! Yes it clarifies perfectly (I am brain dead from the amount of work I have on my plate for this session but where it applies to education and healthcare). Could barely string sentences together by last Thursday 😩
Looks like Section 47 was removed!!!
Thanks!
Amazing: It took the subcommittee nearly four hours to approve 13-4 a shield law for Sig Sauer to sell its defective product in Florida. This proposal, if passed into law, will become a legal precedent for its lawyers to argue in cases throughout the US in the liability suits that are sure to come as the company won't try fix the problem. (Looks like the four dissidents were 2Ds and 2 Rs, which is interesting especially since the 3 members from Duval, 2Rs and one D, all voted in favor. Guess Kim Daniels ignored the Voice from On High not to vote fora defective consumer product.)