First-term legislator for East Lane speaks on behalf of his bill

Presenter: In his freshman session, the state representative from the Upper McKenzie is sponsoring just one bill, House Bill 3564, relating to correction and retraction of defamatory statements published by the press. Speaking to the House Committee on Judiciary March 18, Rep. Darin Harbick:

[00:00:17] Rep. Darin Harbick: For the record, my name is Darin Harbick. I represent House District 12. This bill was first enacted in 1955. And I wasn’t born in 1955, but I think some things have changed since 1955 with some of the technology that we’ve came up with.

[00:00:38] The only statute that had been amended since 1955 was ORS 31.215 which was amended to 1991 to add certified mail as an option for delivering the demand to publish a retraction or correction.

[00:00:51] I think today we’re asking it to be email also, kind of with the times. The bill clarifies that the retraction applies to print and electronic publications. The bill creates an option that the notice for correction may be supplied by email, thus avoiding the need for time-consuming mail or personal delivery.

[00:01:12] Currently, when a news publication is issued a correction, they do not have to go back to the original article and remove the defaming statements. The bill addresses the permanent nature of materials on websites. This is particularly important because such materials may form the basis for information created via artificial intelligence, and thus the risk of misinformation is reduced when the correction is published adjacent to the to material.

[00:01:39] Current law only gives a defamed person 20 days to find an attorney, hire an attorney, and get a letter to the publisher demanding a correction. Extending the time to request a retraction to 60 days is important because it can take considerable time to find an attorney experienced with defamation characters and the complex and nuanced nature of defamation law often necessitates a considerable amount of investigation and legal analysis to properly advise a client.

[00:02:12] And with all the new technology out, it may take a little bit of time to find the information that was actually written about you that was incorrect.

[00:02:22] And so, for those reasons, I’m asking you to please consider this, House Bill 3564. It is my, as a freshman, it is my first and only bill I’ve put through.

[00:02:39] I’ve signed on as co-chiefs of other bills, but this is my one that I just believe from constituents on either side of the aisle: When the press writes something about you that is untrue, it needs to be retracted.

[00:02:52] Again, one of the biggest things, artificial intelligence now can take that statement and hurt you for a long time down the road. So, with that, I appreciate the consideration, and I’ll let this guy tell a little bit of his story.

[00:03:07] Presenter: Legislative Assistant Tyler Harbick:

[00:03:09] Tyler Harbick: My name is Tyler Harbick, and I’m the legislative assistant for Rep. Darin Harbick. I personally had to deal with these archaic statutes last year. And they were first enacted four and a half decades before I was born.

[00:03:23] My attorney wrote a letter to the publication demanding a correction of a defamatory statement and was successful in getting it for me. The publication did everything by the law in terms of the correction they published, even admitting that they regret the error at the end of their correction.

[00:03:43] The biggest issue I noticed with the process is that initially after publishing the correction and acknowledging that they were in error, legally they didn’t need to go back and edit the defaming statements in the past article. Or at least put a link to the correction on the past article.

[00:03:58] For months, the article stayed up with the defamatory statements. I recently looked back in the article and I noticed it was edited to reflect the correction, but I don’t know when that update happened.

[00:04:08] House Bill 3564 makes changes to the law, so that if the publication agrees to issue a correction or a retraction, they must immediately place a link to the correction or retraction on any page that contains the defamatory statement or edit the defamatory statement by removing it.

This is particularly important because, like you said, online archived material is permanent and may form the basis for information created by AI. And thus the risk of misinformation is reduced when the correction is published adjacent to the defamatory material.

[00:04:40] Another issue I came across was the current law states that you only have 20 days upon knowing you have been defamed to send a letter to an editor demanding a correction or retraction. Twenty days is not enough time for an attorney who is experienced with defamation matters. It’s also not enough time for the attorney who has to work with the complex and nuanced nature of defamation law to properly advise a client. Add to that the time it takes for the demand letter to get to the publication, the bottom line is 20 days just isn’t enough. We think it should be at least 60 days.

[00:05:13] The bill also clarifies that the retraction statute applies to print and electronic publications. Since news is moving towards being mostly digital now, putting that clarification in our statute is important.

[00:05:25] Ultimately, this bill just makes it a little easier for the average Oregonian to seek a correction if they feel they’ve been defamed by the media. Please vote yes on House Bill 3564.

[00:05:35] Presenter: Rep. Kevin Mannix:

[00:05:37] Rep. Kevin Mannix: But I’m surprised going online. You can look up a variety of stuff that’s been published in the past and you would think at face value that it was reasonably accurate, but you would never know that that newspaper article or that online feature had some information that was defamatory and maybe it was corrected later but this allows for correction of that as I understand it.

[00:06:01] Tyler Harbick: Exactly, yeah. If they post or agree to a correction, they have to go back to the article that they corrected, at least put a link to the correction, because right now it clearly doesn’t have that.

[00:06:14] Presenter: Rep. Darin Harbick and legislative aide Tyler Harbick make the case for House Bill 3564.

Contact Rep. Harbick by email or by phone, 503-986-1412. The East Lane district includes parts of both Santa Clara and Southeast Eugene.