Many a blog hath heaped coals of condemnation on Tennessee Senator Jamie Woodson for some legislation she tried to get supported (via Volunteer Voters):

The bill would provide enhanced legal protection over and above Tennessee’s current libel and defamation laws for public figures regarding material published by Web site operators, which include blogs and newspapers.

The measure would require web publishers to remove any supposedly defamatory statements within either 15 days or two days after being put on notice by the person in question.

Failure to remove the allegedly defamatory statements under the new bill would create a presumption of malice intent, a key legal element when a public figure has been defamed. Leading communications law experts in the state say the proposed law is deeply flawed. As drafted, the bill would be subject to substantial attack on constitutional grounds, said Robb Harvey, an attorney who works in intellectual property and media litigation for Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis.

As it turns out it’s all just a big misunderstanding >ahem<. From Terry Frank:

I contacted Senator Woodson about the bill. She graciously answered the questions I had as regards to the origin and possibility of introduction and passage of the bill. Sen. Woodson says that Rep. Briley inadvertently filed the bill and that she does not anticipate the bill being introduced in the Senate.

Of the bill’s origins, she states: “The bill that Chairman Briley inadvertently filed was a working draft of legislation proposed to me by a third year student at The University of Tennessee College of Law. I received the request in November 2006, prior to the convening of this legislative session. The student’s concerns related to encouraging web-site owners to remove knowingly defamatory statements against individuals from their web-site. This appeared like a reasonable subject of legislative discussion to me.”

We’ll see how it all washes out, but something doesn’t seem right. If it was just “sample legislation” from a student, why was it passed from her to Rep. Briley to sponsor? It’s not like it grew legs and walked over to his office.

Also her quote, “This appeared like a reasonable subject of legislative discussion to me” is troubling to me. Why would this be reasonable? It’s an attack on free speech — something that conservatives should rail against at every possible opportunity. Not only that, there are already laws in place for slander, libel, and defamation of character. Why would the Tennessee legislature need to address this issue? Do our representatives not have enough real issues to tackle?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

This entry was posted on Friday, February 2nd, 2007 at 12:41 pm and is filed under Stranger than Fiction. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.