STUART, Fla. — Environmental advocates are continuing to raise alarm over a proposed Florida law they say could financially punish citizens, nonprofits or journalists for speaking out against agricultural companies.
The legislation, known as the "Florida Farm Bill," contains a provision that sparked concerns it would limit First Amendment protections and reduce accountability for practices that may harm the environment.
WATCH BELOW: 'Farm Bill' threatens First Amendment rights, critics say
After mounting criticism from advocacy groups, the Florida Senate removed that controversial provision from Senate Bill 290. But the language remains in the Florida House version of the bill, HB 433, prompting growing calls for action.
Florida's "Veggie Libel Law", as it's nicknamed, has existed since 1994, and protects fruits, vegetables and other perishable items from false claims. It's a law on the books in many other states across the nation.
Yet the provision still contained in HB 433 would give agricultural companies more power to sue for defamation by expanding Florida's law protecting perishables to all agricultural products, including crops like sugarcane.
"So if you post something about a product that you bought at Publix or Aldi or wherever that you don't like, can you be sued for it?" said attorney Aaron Bass. "Watch out. It absolutely could potentially open you up to liability."
Bass said the law could apply to anyone — journalists, nonprofits, advocacy groups or even private citizens posting on social media. He said that even sharing an article or post that criticizes an agricultural company could put you at risk of a lawsuit.
"The question is, at what point does that go over the line and affect people's First Amendment rights?" Bass asked.
The bigger concern, Bass said, is that the bill allows agricultural companies to recover attorney fees if they're sued, which could put the defendant on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Yet if the defendant wins, they still have to cover their own legal costs.
Read the full bill below:
"Would this effectively silence any critics of an agricultural company?" investigative reporter Kate Hussey asked Bass.
"Yeah, I think so. I think it would have a chilling effect on a lot of nonprofits in our society," Bass said.
Eve Samples, executive director of Stuart nonprofit Friends of the Everglades, fears this bill would undo decades of work by her and other groups to reduce agricultural runoff that pollutes Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie Estuary, which fuels harmful algae blooms.
"We've been at this for many years, Friends of the Everglades, and this would really force us to think about every tiny detail that could be disputed by the industry," Samples said.
Capt. Chris Wittman of Captains for Clean Water traveled to the state Capitol to voice his concerns about the legislation. His concern, among others, helped remove the provision from the Senate version of the bill.
"The First Amendment is important because it's the ability of people to share what they're seeing, what they think, and push back," Wittman said. "Anything that silences or makes people think twice about using their voice is unacceptable."
Despite the challenges, advocates like Samples remain determined to fight the provision.
"We've seen progress, and absolutely, our voices do matter," Samples said.
This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.