MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE
2020 Regular Session
To: Judiciary, Division A
By: Senator(s) McDaniel
AN ACT ENTITLED THE "STOP GUILT BY ACCUSATION ACT" RELATING TO DEFAMATION BY MEDIA OUTLETS AND SELECTIVE REPORTING BY MEDIA OUTLETS; TO REQUIRE MEDIA OUTLETS TO REPORT ON THE OUTCOME OF A CASE AND CONTROVERSY AFTER REPORTING ON THE INITIAL FILING WHERE THE PETITIONER RECEIVED LESS RELIEF THAN ORIGINALLY SOUGHT OR WHERE THE ACCUSED SENDS A NOTICE TO THE MEDIA OUTLET AFTER THE VERDICT DEMANDING THAT THE FINAL DISPOSITION BE REPORTED; TO AUTHORIZE A CAUSE OF ACTION BY THE ACCUSED PARTY IF THE MEDIA OUTLET FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE DEMAND AND TO PRESCRIBE DAMAGES; TO PROVIDE EXEMPTIONS FROM LIABILITY; TO DECLARE INTENT OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Stop Guilt By Accusation Act."
SECTION 2. (1) The Legislature finds that:
(a) The First Amendment of the United States Constitution asserts that the government "shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press."
(b) Freedom of the press in the United States is not absolute and is subject to certain restrictions, such as defamation law.
(c) The state has a compelling interest to compel the press to promote the objective truth for the sake of the viability of democracy and for the safety, health, and welfare of our communities and in keeping with the spirit of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and to stop the press from serving as a slander machine.
(d) There has been a growing trend for individuals to abuse process and maliciously prosecute someone they disagree with ideologically by filing spurious cases and controversies in various government venues for ulterior motives, knowing that certain segments of the media that align with their ideology would serve as an accomplice by engaging in a form of defamation in-kind by selectively reporting on the facts of the original case but not on the actual outcome in actions where the petitioner received less relief than originally sought, which cultivates an unjust prejudicial conviction in the court of public opinion causing the cause to be shunned, avoided, and marginalized and the media outlet guilty of defamation in-kind to the point that it unduly decreases the quality of life for the accused.
(e) The pattern of media outlets only reporting on the facts of a case and controversy but not the outcome has incentivized the abuse of our institutions of justice to the point that it threatens to erode the community's trust in the integrity of different government institutions, while giving license to an unaccountable members of the press to abuse their position with impunity by trampling civil liberties.
(f) The state has a compelling interest to compel the press to promote the truth because without truth, there is no freedom, freedom comes from the truth.
SECTION 3. As used in this act:
(a) "Abuse of process" means the act of bringing and following through with a civil or criminal action or case and controversy for a purpose known to be different from the purpose for which the action was designed. The term includes proceedings that are brought for ulterior reasons than sought on the surface.
(b) "Accused" means a person who is blamed for a wrongdoing before a civil court, ethics commission, criminal court, administrative court, or a military tribunal. The term includes a person who has been arrested or formally charged by an indictment, information, or presentment with a crime or ethical violation. The term means the suspect, respondent, or defendant.
(c) "Case and controversy" means any civil, criminal, or ethical proceedings before any governmental, state, federal, and administrative court, ethics commission, military tribunal, or legislative body.
(d) "Court of public opinion" means the general community consensus or opinion.
(e) "Defamation" means a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published with fault, meaning as a result of negligence or malice.
(f) "Defamation in-kind" means the failure of a media outlet to report on the outcome of a case and controversy after it reported on the initial filings of a case and controversy in which the petitioner ended up receiving less relief than originally sought or could have obtained, which could reasonably cultivate in a conviction in the court of public opinion by placing the accused in a false light that causes him to be avoided, marginalized, and shunned by the general public.
(g) "False light" means an untrue or misleading portrayal.
(h) "Malicious prosecution" means initiating a criminal prosecution or civil suit or other proceedings against another party with malice and without probable cause.
(i) "Media outlet" means a publication or broadcast program that provides news and feature stories to the public through various distribution channels. Media outlets include newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television stations, and certain websites on the internet and are part of the press. A media outlet does not involve a person who does not work in the press as a profession or who does not regularly engage in the business of reporting.
(j) "Mug shot" means an official photograph taken after the accused suspect is arrested for an alleged criminal violation. The intended purpose of the mug shot is to allow law enforcement to have a photographic record of the arrested individual. Mug shots are also intended to be used for identification by victims and investigators. Usually, mug shots are two-part, one (1) side-view photo, and another front-view.
(k) "Petitioner" means a person or government body who presents a petition to a government authority in respect of a particular cause. The term means plaintiffs, claimant, or complainant.
(l) "Press" means the people such as reporters and photographers who work for newspapers, magazines, television, websites, and radio outlets.
SECTION 4. (1) A media outlet is required to provide equal coverage in comparable time, place, magnitude, prominence, scale and manner in the same format as the original reporting of a case and controversy, if and only if:
(a) The media outlet reported on the facts of a case and controversy and the final verdict provided less relief against the accused than originally sought by the petitioner or less than could have been obtained by the petitioner; and
(b) The accused or the authorized agent of the accused sends an electronic or written notice demand to an authorized agent of the media outlet within twenty (20) days after the verdict or outcome, demanding that the facts surrounding the final and actual decision or outcome be reported and published as a follow-up to the original reporting.
(2) In the written notification described in subsection (1) of this section, the accused or the authorized agent of the accused must include:
(a) The date and source of the first reporting by the media outlet;
(b) A short description of the original allegations, the original relief sought by the petitioner, or the amount of relief that could have been obtained, and a short description of the final outcome and the relief actually awarded;
(c) The location of the venue where the case and controversy was resolved and the docket number of the case and controversy, if one was assigned;
(d) An acknowledgment that the positions asserted in the notice demand are declared under oath under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC Section 1746;
(3) In the notice demand described in subsection (1) of this section, the accused or the authorized agent of the accused may include:
(a) A photograph of the accused that authorizes the media outlet to use at its discretion;
(b) Links to or a hard copy of the original coverage published by the media outlet;
(c) A demand to take down any unflattering pictures or mug shot of the accused that were used in the original publication; and
(d) Any other facts or pertinent information that could be relevant.
(4) If a media outlet reports on the facts of a case and controversy and displays the mug shot of the accused, and the accused is acquitted, enters into a plea of no contest, or receives an outcome more favorable than originally sought by the petitioner or available to the petitioner:
(a) The media outlet shall take down or remove the mug shot from any digital publication if possible.
(b) The media outlet shall not display the mug shot in the follow-up publication that reports on the actual outcome of the case and controversy and shall only display images that it has the authorization to use.
(5) If the result of a civil trial is settled under the terms of a private settlement agreement, the accused is not required to provide the terms of the private settlement agreement but can alert the media outlet that the case and controversy was settled.
SECTION 5. (1) After receiving the notice demand by the accused described in Section 4(1) of this act, a media outlet that reported on the facts of the case and controversy prior to its resolution has ten (10) days to comply with Section 4(1) of this act, by publishing the follow-up story that reports on the actual outcome. The accused will have the burden of proof at a civil trial to show that the notice was timely served on the media outlet and met the requirements of Section 4(2) of this act.
(2) If the media outlet fails to comply with the notice demand within ten (10) days, the accused has one (1) year to file suit from the day of noncompliance and can seek the following relief in the court of competent jurisdiction against the media outlet:
(a) Statutory damages of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00);
(b) Attorney's fees and costs;
(c) Actual damages; and
(d) Other forms of equitable and injunctive relief.
(3) If multiple media outlets fail to comply with the notice demand subjected to the jurisdiction of this court, they can be added as co-defendants in a consolidated case to conserve judicial economy.
(4) If the media outlet displayed the mug shot of the accused in the original publication as described in Section 4(4) of this act in a digital format, the accused can seek injunctive relief to have the media outlet remove the image.
SECTION 6. (1) Media outlet is immune and exempt from liability under this act if it:
(a) Is known to publish satire or parody or admits that it is a fake news outlet that is purposed to traffic in fiction peddling for comedic or entertainment purposes;
(b) Reports on the facts of the outcome in comparable time, place, magnitude, prominence, scale and manner of the original publication prior to receiving the notice demand from the accused;
(c) Receives an untimely notice demand twenty (20) days after the day of the verdict by the accused; and
(d) Never reported on the case and controversy prior to the decision being reached.
(2) The petitioner has no standing under this statute to make a media outlet report on the outcome of a case and controversy regardless of the outcome. Neither the petitioner nor the accused have standing to compel a media outlet to report on the case and controversy after it is filed.
(3) If a media outlet reported on a case of controversy involving one or more felony charges and the accused was convicted or pled guilty to one (1) felony count, the accused lacks standing to enforce this act.
(4) This act does not apply to a media outlet that publishes a documentary, film, or an extensive investigative report regarding a case and controversy.
SECTION 7. (1) An accused has the right to waive his rights under this act as a part of a negotiated settlement.
(2) A court of competent jurisdiction has the discretion to not acknowledge that waiver of rights described in subsection (1) of this section if there is any evidence that the waiver was undertaken under coercion.
SECTION 8. The purpose of this act is to:
(a) Prevent unchecked media outlets from acting as slander machines by engaging in defamation in-kind, abusing the general public, and degrading the integrity of our institutions of justice through selective reporting on cases and controversies that cultivates false narratives to the point that it unduly injures the accused by eroding their civil liberties causing them to be shunned and avoided by the general public due to a cloud of suspicion of wrongdoing that does not exactly align with the original allegations or the relief provided in a case and controversy lodged before a government body;
(b) Protect the integrity of the press and encourage good character of the members of the press corps;
(c) Deter malicious prosecution, abuse of process in general, prosecutors from overcharging defendants, and plaintiffs from seeking excessive reliefs in the original cause complaint;
(d) Promote a mercy centric justice system because no human is perfect; and
(e) Deter convictions in the court of public opinion that do not necessarily align with convictions by our institutions of justice.
SECTION 9. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2020.