Repeals and adds to existing law to provide for the crime of criminal libel, to provide penalties, to provide for restitution to a victim, and to provide for jurisdiction to prosecute.
House Bill 306 repeals Idaho’s existing Chapter 48 in Title 18 and replaces it with a new chapter establishing the crime of criminal libel. The bill defines criminal libel as publishing a false statement about another person with actual malice, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. It also includes legislative findings stating that malicious falsehoods are easier to spread through social media, can harm reputations, careers, and safety, and are not constitutionally protected under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Garrison v. Louisiana.
The bill makes criminal libel a felony punishable by up to a $100,000 fine, up to five years in prison, or both. It also authorizes courts to order restitution for specific costs or losses caused by the libel. For enforcement, the county prosecutor generally has jurisdiction where venue is proper, but the attorney general may prosecute cases involving false statements against state officers or state employees concerning official conduct. The bill is set to take effect on July 1, 2025, under an emergency clause.
If enacted, the bill would significantly change Idaho’s treatment of defamatory speech by creating a new felony offense and replacing the prior libel chapter with a criminal enforcement framework. It would expand state criminal law to cover knowingly false or recklessly false statements made with actual malice, while also creating restitution remedies and assigning prosecutorial authority between county prosecutors and the attorney general in cases involving state officials or employees. The bill would affect speakers, publishers, social media users, and anyone accused of making false statements about others, as well as victims seeking criminal penalties and restitution.
The bill text reflects a strong pro-enforcement sentiment, emphasizing reputational harm, public safety, and the need to deter malicious lies in the social media era. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or vote history to indicate broader support or opposition. Based on the bill’s findings and structure, the measure appears motivated by concern over online misinformation and personal harm rather than by a neutral regulatory update.
The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s revival of criminal libel as a felony, which raises free-speech and First Amendment concerns even though the bill cites Garrison v. Louisiana to support its constitutionality. Critics may argue that criminal penalties, especially a felony with substantial fines and prison time, could chill speech, journalism, political criticism, and online commentary. Supporters are likely to emphasize the actual malice standard, the focus on knowingly false statements, and the need to protect Idahoans from deliberate reputational attacks. The jurisdiction provision giving the attorney general authority over statements about state officers or employees may also draw attention because it places politically sensitive cases under state-level prosecution.