AUSTIN A state lawmaker wants to make it easier for public figures and officials to sue newspapers and to force reporters to disclose sources, but opponents say his bills would chill important coverage.
Critics of House Bill 3387 and House Bill 3388, authored by Rep. Ken King, R-Canadian, also argued in a State Affairs committee hearing that the proposals, if enacted, would violate the First Amendment.
HB 3387 would require that news reports explain how a particular story on a public official relates to the persons public duties.
King said that his bill would allow public officials to seek justice, but press advocates argued that such a rule would not only make it easier for the subject of the story to win a libel suit, but ultimately cause newspapers not to cover public officials for fear of costly legal judgments.
The bill would make the question of who is or is not a public figure less clear cut, giving officials the opportunity to argue that they were acting as private citizens, not in their official capacity in a particular situation: for example, a county official who protested his tax valuation.
The public/private distinction is important because even if news reports contain false statements, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public figures and officials cannot collect libel damages newspapers without proving actual malice.
Courts have for over 50 years held that actual malice means that a newspaper knew the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth.
Salem Abraham testified in support of the HB 3387.
Abraham was a Canadian, Texas, school board trustee who in 2012 unsuccessfully sued an Internet blog for libel.
Abraham, who supported King in a race for state representative, argued that making him prove actual malice without showing a connection between his board position and the story had nothing to do with free speech.
But, David Donaldson, an attorney who represented the Texas Press Association and the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, said that whether or not plaintiffs are public figures is an issue that has to be determined as a matter of law, by courts.
HB 3388 would alter Texas reporter shield laws, which protects journalists from being forced to testify or turn over sources and materials.
Stacy Allen, an attorney who represented the Texas Association of Broadcasters at the hearing, said that the states reporter shield law is considered a model.
Donnis Baggett, executive vice president of the Texas Press Association, said that as drafted, Kings bill violates the First Amendment.
Under the bill, reporters who had contributed to or worked for political campaigns within the previous five years would be unable to claim the shield protection.
The same rule would apply to reporters who work for media companies or newspaper owners who have made campaign contributions within the five years.
If enacted, it would also penalize those who claim the reporters privilege, but who are subsequently found not to be journalists.
Opponents noted that media companies may well have owners or shareholders who make political contributions, a fact that would limit what their reporters could shield under the law.
As for resolving who is or isnt a journalist, that is best left to the courts, Allen said.
King said that bill is aimed at those who go buy an iPad and call themselves journalists.
He was working on a committee substitute for the bill, King said at the hearing.
But Baggett said that we have grave concerns about where were starting from.
John Austin covers the Texas Statehouse for CNHIs newspapers and websites. Reach him at jaustin@cnhi.com.
Read more from the original source:
Texas lawmaker takes aim at journalists and the First Amendment - Huntsville Item