HB 3564
Modifies provisions relating to demands for correction or retraction of a defamatory statement published in an electronic newspaper, magazine or other periodical.
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Sign in to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Sign in to take actionPublic sentiment
Support
52%
Oppose
48%
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Bill overview
This bill changes the rules for demanding corrections or retractions from publishers of newspapers, magazines, and other periodicals when a statement is deemed defamatory. It clarifies the process for submitting these demands, including the required format and timeframe for the publisher to respond. The bill also updates how publishers must provide corrections or retractions, particularly for online publications, requiring a prominent link to the correction alongside the original statement.
Key provisions
- Demands for correction or retraction must be in writing, signed, and delivered within 20 days of receiving the defamatory statement.
- Publishers have two weeks to investigate a demand.
- Corrections or retractions must be published in the next edition of the publication.
- For electronic publications, corrections must be linked to the original defamatory statement.
- The correction or retraction must state that the original statements are not factually supported.
- The correction or retraction must be published in a manner as conspicuous as the original defamatory statement.
- The bill amends existing law to include a new section (31.215).
- The bill specifies delivery methods for demands (personal, registered mail, or certified mail).
Who is affected
- Publishers of newspapers, magazines, and periodicals
- Individuals who have been defamed
- Attorneys representing individuals who have been defamed
Notable changes
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
Primary sponsor
Cosponsors
David Brock Smith
Arguments in favor
Reasons to support this legislation.
Supporters of the bill emphasize its potential to increase accountability in news and media reporting, ensuring accurate and unbiased information. Many advocates argue that the legislation aims to balance individual reputations with free speech rights by requiring publishers to verify claims and correct errors. Some testifiers suggest including automatic lawsuit provisions to hold individuals responsible for defamation, while others highlight the importance of promoting fairness in free speech, safeguarding individuals from false information, and encouraging responsible journalism. Overall, supporters view the bill as a crucial step towards modernizing media accountability, ensuring consistency, transparency, and timely corrections, and protecting individuals harmed by inaccurate or misleading content.
Source: Testimony Summaries
Arguments opposed
Reasons to oppose this legislation.
Opponents of House Bill 3564 express concerns that the legislation would have a chilling effect on public-interest journalism, stifling the ability of local reporters and small outlets to report factually. Many the bill's contradictory instructions for publishers and its requirement for 40-day waiting periods for corrections would create financial burdens on newsrooms and intimidate journalists into not publishing factual information. The existing law on retractions/corrections has served Oregonians well, and some argue that altering it would have unintended consequences. Additionally, opponents worry that the bill's provisions would stifle public-interest reporting, threaten the free press, and create new problems for small, independent newsrooms like those of Branden Andersen.