Connect with us

Politics

Florida’s AI laws are stronger than you think

Published

on


As Florida’s 2026 Legislative Session approaches, artificial intelligence is expected to be a major focus among Tallahassee’s policymakers. Driven by Gov. Ron DeSantis’ calls for greater regulation, the legislature has already filed at least 32 bills ranging from embracing the new technology to banning it. But before legislators weigh these proposals, they should review the protections Florida has already put in place.

The House got a head start on the subject during their inaugural AI Week, convening various agencies, industries, and practitioners to discuss how they are approaching the emerging technology. As legislators consider new AI proposals, they would do well to heed the advice of Leo Schoonover, Chief Information Officer at the Department of Health, who urged the state in an early IT Budget & Policy Subcommittee meeting to “set the floor, not the ceiling.”

Schoonover has reason to be confident.

Over the past few years, Florida has set a strong “floor” of accountability for AI, in some cases without even trying. Those who testified before House committees repeatedly noted that Florida’s existing legal framework already addresses many of the concerns people have about AI. This is largely because preexisting laws tend to be process-neutral, providing penalties for harmful outcomes regardless of the tool or technology used.

Whether the technology is a chatbot, image generator, or diagnostic tool, the same accountability principles apply.

Consider the state’s protections against unauthorized commercial use of someone’s likeness. In 1967, long before generative AI was conceivable, lawmakers established penalties for profiting from a person’s identity without consent. While some fear that AI-generated media might evade these restrictions, the original statute focuses on the transgression rather than the method. Unauthorized profiteering remains illegal, whether the image is captured by a camera or generated by an algorithm.

The same accountability principles apply across licensed professional practices. The Florida Bar testified that lawyers who cite AI-hallucinated cases already face disciplinary action under longstanding ethics rules that predate the technology. Similarly, health care providers confirmed that physicians remain fully liable for any incorrect AI-assisted diagnosis or documentation under existing malpractice standards. Physicians, therefore, have strong reason to actively verify AI outputs rather than defer to them without scrutiny. In both professions, existing accountability structures discourage over-reliance without requiring AI-specific regulation.

Where regulatory gaps have arisen, the Legislature has moved to close them. Since 2022, the Legislature has reaffirmed that willfully promoting an altered sexual depiction of someone without their consent is illegal, most recently with the passage of “Brooke’s Law” last Session. In 2024, the Legislature passed requirements for political advertisements to include a transparency disclosure when content is created using AI. These efforts extend the same process-neutral logic to new contexts, keeping the focus on the harm itself rather than the technology used to commit it. If new gray areas arise in the future, Florida can and should apply the same framework when drafting new protections.

AI Week offered Florida a model for approaching novel technologies. Legislators heard directly from the agencies, industries, and practitioners who work with these tools every day. That kind of informed deliberation is exactly what good policymaking looks like. Florida has taken Schoonover’s approach without even realizing it. Through decades of process-neutral law, Florida has built a strong floor of consumer protection, while recent legislation has filled gaps where needed.

In the upcoming Session, legislators have a chance to build upon that foundation rather than abandon it. The floor is already there. All that’s left is deciding whether to trust it.

___

Turner Loesel is a policy analyst in the Center for Technology and Innovation at The James Madison Institute.



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Defiant Donna Deegan says staffer’s ICE warning broke social media policy, but was legal

Published

on


A city of Jacksonville employee who advised illegal immigrants on how to deal with immigration policing “targeting” them didn’t break the law according to Mayor Donna Deegan.

But Yanira Cardona did break social media policy, Deegan told media on Thursday, and that’s why the city’s Hispanic Outreach Coordinator was put on administrative leave.

“We’ve got a mayor, who is the spokesperson for the city, and we have people who follow policy that if you are going to create any sort of social media content, if you are going to make any sort of commentary, especially in this office, that would be construed as coming from the mayor, that has to come through me or through our communications office. Period. And that is a concept that some people in this office have struggled with, and she has struggled with, unfortunately, repeatedly. And at some point, if you have a policy that is not followed, it doesn’t really continue to be a policy. And if you don’t make some sort of  consequence to that. then I think people aren’t going to take it seriously,” Deegan said.

Deegan said General Counsel Michael Fackler said Cardona’s comments, put on Instagram during business hours and apparently broadcast live from City Hall Wednesday, were legal. That runs counter to the interpretation by Attorney General James Uthmeier , who said “this is illegal and needs to be seriously addressed!”

Deegan said Cardona’s comments were legal and questioned whether Uthmeier even watched the video.

“ICE is out and about,” she said. “They are doing speed traps. They are, they’ve been seen on Emerson, on Beach Boulevard, on Atlantic and on the highway. They are targeting, literally, they’re targeting any lawn care companies, any AC company construction vans. They’re literally stopping them just to make sure that they have their paperwork.”

Cardona arguably politicked during her message, saying “as much as we want to get up and fight, guys, as much as we want to, believe me, it’s not the right way right now.

“We have to listen, we have to comply, get the plan in place. Voting pretty soon on med elections. We’re gonna get to vote on mid-elections pretty soon,” she said Wednesday.

Deegan said Cardona was speaking out of “compassion” to address “an immigrant population that is hurting” because of immigration enforcement,” and expressed frustration that she had to respond with an “inordinate amount of energy” and provide “grist for the political mill” because Cardona’s comments were used as a “political whipping post.”

“I’m not the one that made the action public,” Deegan said. “It was made public by other people.”

Deegan did not commit to retaining or firing Cardona, saying she needed to “follow policies” but she would “hate to lose her.”





Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

House backs bill to lower gun-buying age to 18, repeal provisions in post-Parkland law

Published

on


Once again, the House has overwhelmingly passed a controversial bill that would lower the gun-buying age from 21 to 18 years old and roll back a bipartisan law put in place after the Parkland school shootings.

And once again, questions persist on whether the measure will advance in the Senate to become law.

The House passed HB 133 with a vote of 74-37. The process featured an emotional debate from multiple lawmakers who were local officials responding to the mass shooting in 2018.

“Two hundred ninety-six days, less than a year ago, we sat in this same room, on this same floor, this same chamber with the same piece of legislation under a different bill number,” said Rep. Dan Daley, a Coral Springs Democrat who responded to the shooting as a then-Coral Springs City Commissioner. “It’s déjà vu all over again.”

In Thursday’s debate, Democrats slammed HB 133, saying it would put deadly weapons to the hands of 18-year-olds on high school campuses and increase school shootings. They also accused House Republicans of retraumatizing the victims and families of Parkland by their attempts to repeal the law.

“This bill was signed in the blood of the victims of this tragedy, and to undo it is a sin in my book,” said Rep. Robin Bartleman, a Weston Democrat.

But Rep. Tyler Sirois, the bill sponsor, said he wasn’t in Tallahassee when the Legislature approved the 2018 law raising the minimum age to 21 after a 19-year-old gunman killed 17 students and staff with an AR-15 weapon that same year.

“There is no joy in this,” Sirois said, acknowledging the “tragedy that happened and the Legislature responded at the time the way that they thought best.”

Sirois said if he had been a lawmaker at the time, he would have voted against raising the age.

“In my view, it’s the wrong public policy for Florida to pursue. I’ve offered this legislation now for a number of years and you see it once again today,” the Merritt Island Republican said during the debate.

“I am someone who believes firmly in our Constitution, firmly in our Second Amendment. … I view this legislation as the correct public policy for the state and offer it as a way for families and individuals to keep themselves safe by restoring the rights of 18-year-olds to buy long guns.”

But Democrats said young people — whose brains aren’t fully developed, affecting their impulse control and reasoning — are also at a higher risk for suicide.

“Alcohol, you’ve got to be 21. Handguns in many states, you’ve got to be 21. Rental cars, you’ve got to be 25,” said Rep. Yvonne Hayes Hinson, a Gainesville Democrat. “The logic is the same. Greater access comes with greater responsibility and society routinely delays that access.”

Sirois countered that 18-year-olds can serve on a grand jury, run for public office and join the military. Why can’t they buy a gun?

Last year, the House adopted a similar bill that ultimately died in the Senate. For the 2026 Session, no companion bill has been filed in the Senate, and Senate President Ben Albritton didn’t reveal his intentions when asked about the bill earlier this week.

Albritton told reporters it depends on the Chairs and the Senate’s “appetite for such a bill as a whole.”

During Thursday’s House vote, Rep. Christine Hunschofsky, a Democrat who was the Mayor of Parkland when the shooting happened, said reversing the provisions in the 2018 law would be “devastating” and “heartbreaking.”

“I am so incredibly proud of the bipartisan members who voted for the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act. It’ll be now almost eight years ago. They showed political courage and did not cower to the loud voices of a very, very small minority,” Hunschofsky said.

“This bill has stood the test of time. It has stood constitutional challenges. There is no reason that the current law should be rolled back because it’s working.”

But Rep. Juan Carlos Porras urged lawmakers to greenlight the bill. He took digs at the Senate, arguing the issue has “gone on deaf ears on the other side of the chamber.”

The House is the people’s house, Porras said.

“We are the most representative form of government to our constituents here in Florida. I thought it was interesting that obviously the Governor chose to shake the Senate President’s hand but not our Speaker’s,” Porras said, referencing Gov. Ron DeSantis’ snub with House Speaker Daniel Perez at the annual State of the State address this week.

“When we talk about our Second Amendment, I empathize with some of our colleagues, but this House does not waver when it comes to our constitutional rights. We do not buckle or yield when it comes to having adversity in this chamber,” said Porras, a Miami Republican.

March For Our Lives and other activists have been fighting against lowering the gun-buying age and spend four-figures on billboards to appear Thursday in Tallahassee.

“Make no mistake, this is not an abstract policy debate,” said Jackie Corin, March For Our Lives’ Executive Director and Parkland survivor. “This is about whether Florida will protect young people or knowingly increase the risk of harm. It is about whether the state will stand by the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, a law that was enacted to save lives, or erase it entirely.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Blaise Ingoglia announces reimbursement of 5 local law enforcement agencies for immigration enforcement

Published

on


Five Florida local law enforcement agencies were awarded a combined $1.78 million as reimbursement for their work on immigration enforcement, Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia announced.

The funding went to Sheriff’s Offices in Polk, Hernando, Sarasota and Hardee counties, as well as the Port Richey Police Department.

At a news conference in Winter Haven, Ingoglia said the agencies have been enforcing immigration laws and arresting undocumented migrants for years. He said they are costly operations, and it’s appropriate they get reimbursed from federal funds.

“Local law enforcement agencies throughout Florida work tirelessly to protect Floridians. Because of the crisis caused by reckless border policies of the Joe Biden administration, our local law enforcement agencies have stepped up to assist with immigration enforcement efforts and help to deport dangerous criminal illegal aliens out of our country,” Ingoglia said.

“It is because of their efforts that Florida leads the nation in immigration enforcement. We must keep our foot on the gas to continue our efforts to protect Floridians from criminal illegal aliens.”

The immigration issue has risen to increased prominence in the past year as tensions mount in many states, most notably in Minnesota in the past week. But Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said his deputies have long been focusing on deporting migrants who are not in the country legally.

“As our deputies work to arrest and transport criminal illegal aliens, they must have the tools to do their job safely and effectively. I want to thank CFO Ingoglia for his dedication to prioritizing the needs of our deputies as they protect and serve the Polk County community,” Judd said.

Ingoglia presented ceremonial checks to each law enforcement office. The breakdown of funding for each Department includes:

— Polk County Sheriff’s Office: $1,006,985.10.

— Hernando County Sheriff’s Office: $321,112.30.

— Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office: $283,389.68.

— Hardee County Sheriff’s Office: $135,560.

— Port Richey Police Department: $32,850.

The federal funding is distributed through the Florida State Board of Immigration Enforcement, which applies for the reimbursements. Ingoglia is a member of that Board, along with Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General James Uthmeier and Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.