Brookline Republican Jack Flanagan has a bill with all the best of intentions. HB1157 is an Act relative to liability of New Hampshire news media for failure to update stories on criminal proceedings. What does that mean? Media could be required to update stories under penalty of law.
I did say, best of intentions.
Individuals who face criminal proceedings are regularly reported as news. HB1157 would require “a news media to update, retract, or correct an Internet published article about a criminal proceeding following an acquittal, dismissal, or finding of not guilty.”
1 New Section; Liability of News Media. Amend RSA 507 by inserting after section 8-i the following new section:
507:8-j Liability of News Media. The failure of a New Hampshire news media organization to update, retract, or correct an Internet published story concerning a criminal proceeding against a named person, immediately following written notification of the media organization by the injured person of a subsequent finding of not guilty, acquittal, or dismissal of the charges against such person in a criminal proceeding, shall result in the liability of the New Hampshire news media organization for any damages incurred by the person caused by such failure.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
Well-intentioned. But ill-advised. History is history. On that day at that time, the facts, as alleged, were as follows. That snapshot does not change (nor does anyone’s opinion regarding it at the time) because we have new information.
For context, this is my personal policy concerning my internet published content.
If I were ever asked to amend a past story for factual inaccuracies (proven beyond a doubt to be incorrect), it would need to be inaccurate at the time it was written. Not a month a year or ten years later because new information is available.
I would refuse. There is nothing in the original story that is incorrect based on the date of publication. That is not, however, the end of that story. Upon request, time permitting, at my leisure, I would consider a follow up that links to the original — a new article iterating the circumstances today.
This legislation requires any media source contacted to alter that story under a threat of legal action backed by the will of the State of New Hampshire.
How do I put this..?
No.
Put another way, language warning, f**k, No!
The state will not empower individuals to threaten me for refusing to change a story that, when printed, was factually correct or compel my speech to update, correct, amend, or retract, that opinion or reporting, or to write a new article clarifying the outcome.
And the state will not empower anyone to command me to write it.
Best of Intentions
I know Jack. I like Jack. I understand why he responded to constituent concerns by introducing it. That’s part of his role. To test the legislative waters based on the thoughts of those who put him in office. And perhaps he mentioned the unlikelihood that this would survive the legislative process or any legal challenge. I hope he did. Legislators should interact with constituents to help them understand why some well-intentioned efforts open the door to things we should oppose. Something that would run afoul of rights protected by our state or federal constitution.
This act is the power to compel speech under threat of legal action and financial ruin. Today, we consider the matter of liability over criminal proceedings. And tomorrow? How far can or will the state go to decide what speech it can compel from the media? (Speech you can’t unprint in newspapers or their image archives online – by the way.)
If you think for one moment that I’m fearmongering or exaggerating the potential for future abuse based on this as precedent, you are kidding yourself, or you might be a Marxist.
We cannot, nor will we support this, but I confess that I am very interested to see who among our legislators will support it.
Image: Intellectual Freedom Blog
| NHPR
