Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
03/28/2022 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB34 | |
| SB214 | |
| HB157 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | SB 34 | ||
| SB 214 | |||
| HB 157 | |||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 214-LIABILITY: SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP
1:43:15 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 214 "An Act relating to civil
liability for censorship of speech by a social media platform."
[CSSB 214(STA) was before the committee.
1:43:39 PM
SENATOR LORA REINBOLD, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 214, paraphrased the sponsor statement.
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 214 may also be known as the Stop Social Media
Censorship Act. This bill ensures that the legislature
is opposed to censorship of online content, has a
compelling interest in holding certain social media
platforms to higher standards for having established a
digital public square, and has an interest in helping
its residents regardless of religious or political
affiliations enjoy their free exercise of rights in
certain semipublic forum commonly used for religious
or political speech, and has an interest, and has an
interest in preventing social media platforms that
have substantially created a digital public square
from malicious interference in state elections.
Social media platforms may not intentionally fact
check, delete, or use an algorithm to disfavor, shadow
ban or otherwise censor the religious or political
speech of a platform user. SB 214 includes civil
liability for censorship of speech by a social media
platform.
1:44:15 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that many people on social media have
been restricted or had misinformation stickers placed on their
social media pages. She related that an invited testifier would
speak to a court case related to this issue. She indicated she
wanted to discourage large social media platforms from adversely
impacting social media platform users by censoring them.
SENATOR REINBOLD highlighted that this is an emerging area of
law that could impact political and religious speech.
1:46:40 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD provided a sectional analysis for SB 214. She
stated that Section 1 would refer to the Act as the Stop Social
Media Censorship Act.
[Original punctuation provided.]
1:46:49 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD paraphrased Section 2 of SB 214, which read:
[Original punctuation provided.]
(1) is opposed to censorship of online content, unless
the content is harmful to minors or promotes human
trafficking;
(2) has a compelling interest in holding certain
social media platforms to higher standards for having
substantially created a digital public square;
(3) has an interest in helping its residents,
regardless of religious or political affiliation,
enjoy their free exercise of rights in certain
semipublic forums commonly used for religious and
political speech; and
4) has an interest in preventing social media
platforms that have substantially created a digital
public square from malicious interference in state
elections.
1:47:44 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that Section 3 relates to civil
liability for censorship of speech by a social media platform.
She paraphrased subsection (a).
Except as provided in (g) of this section, the owner
or operator of a social media platform may not
intentionally fact check, delete, or use an algorithm
to disfavor, shadow ban, or otherwise censor the
religious or political speech of a platform user.
1:48:04 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD noted that subsection (b), (c), and (d)
establishes liability for a social media platform that violates
subsection (a).
1:48:19 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD paraphrased subsection (f), which lists
exceptions to civil liability for censorship of speech by a
social media platform.
f) This section does not apply to deletion or
censorship of a platform user's speech on a social
media platform when that speech
(1) calls for immediate acts of violence;
(2) calls for a user to engage in self harm;
(3) is pornographic;
(4) is the result of operational error;
(5) is the result of a court order;
(6) comes from an inauthentic source or involves
impersonation;
(7) entices criminal conduct;
(8) is harmful to minors; or
(9) involves bullying of minors
1:48:42 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD paraphrased subsection (g).
(g) Notwithstanding (a) - (f) of this section,
bullying and harassing behavior are prohibited on
social media platforms. A social media platform shall
take steps to prevent bullying and harassing behavior
and shall provide a platform user who hosts a page a
mechanism to establish and enforce rules of decorum to
prevent bullying and harassing behavior on the
platform user's page.
1:49:07 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that subsection (h) provides definitions
for algorithm, hate speech, platform user, and social media
platform.
1:49:22 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD noted that the State Affairs Committee amended
the bill to redefine "religious."
1:49:57 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to fact checking in Section 3. He stated
that the Alaska Constitution protects the freedom to publish. He
expressed concern that prohibiting a social media platform from
fact checking would appear to prevent the owners from publishing
on their own website. He asked whether that would raise any
constitutional issues.
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that she interpreted the court case
to determine that the "fact checking" was actually "opinion
checking," which would essentially be expressing an opinion
about an opinion that was posted.
1:51:16 PM
SENATOR MYERS responded that the issue wasn't whether the action
taken was based on a fact check or an opinion, but if the social
media platform owner was allowed to publish on their own site.
This bill would prohibit them from doing so.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether he was referring to a social
media platform, such as Facebook, or the user being prohibited
from publishing.
SENATOR MYERS responded that he was addressing social media
platforms, including Facebook. For example, if he were to post
something on Facebook and Facebook decided to fact check his
posting, the bill would not allow Facebook to publish comments
that the platform user's posting was inaccurate or proven wrong.
1:52:06 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD disagreed. She offered her view that social
media platform owners could post on their site, but the bill
would not allow them to post their opinion on a platform user.
1:52:37 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND understood the sponsor to say that a social media
platform, such as Facebook, could not "opinion check" on the
platform user postings but could provide "fact check"
information on their web page.
1:53:37 PM
JAMES TAYLOR, President, Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois,
related that the institute is a nonprofit public policy
organization focusing primarily on policy issues before state
legislatures. He stated that they have been following this bill
because many people feel constrained in sharing information on
social media with their friends, family, and colleagues. He
offered his belief that three corporations control 97 percent of
social media traffic in this country. Although he did not have
any issue with them competing for market share, he expressed
concern that they use their power to stifle people's free speech
rights.
1:55:14 PM
MR. TAYLOR characterized Facebook as a great platform, so people
use it. However, more than 20 million Americans have had their
social media posts about COVID-19 blocked, banned, and censored.
MR. TAYLOR said Heartland Institute addresses numerous public
policy issues, including global warming, school, choice, and
health care. He receives feedback from people who attend his
lectures, who say that when they post their views on social
media, the platform owners block them. They demand action be
taken.
1:56:18 PM
MR. TAYLOR noted that legislatures throughout the country had
recognized the importance of this topic. He recalled that
approximately 37 state legislators had introduced legislation on
this topic, and several bills have passed.
MR. TAYLOR said the founding fathers recognized the importance
of protecting free speech. The Declaration of Independence
states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that we are
endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among
them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to
secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." He
said the First Amendment affirms this.
MR. TAYLOR related that sometimes government threatens these
rights, but some government is necessary to protect unalienable
rights, including free speech. He offered his belief that three
corporations controlling social media speech are using their
power to stifle unalienable free speech rights. He pointed out
that social media platforms or "big tech" have gone on record
asking the state and federal government to take action. For
example, during the Superbowl, Facebook called for new laws and
regulations to tell them what lines to draw. He commented that
he had quotes that he could share.
MR. TAYLOR stated that social media platforms had also published
papers that find government has not taken enough action to
address antiquated laws. Further, the platform owners explained
that because government does not take action, they are forced to
restrict some platform user posts. Social media platform owners
indicated that if people want things changed, they must go to
their legislators or government.
MR. TAYLOR offered his view that SB 214 was one of the better
bills before legislatures, so the institute contacted the
sponsor to testify in support of the bill.
1:58:58 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND asked what he specifically liked about the bill.
1:59:16 PM
MR. TAYLOR responded that three things stood out to him. First,
the bill establishes statutory damages if social media platforms
stifle free speech. He noted that some legislatures took the
approach that people can file a lawsuit. However, attorney costs
can be expensive for individuals, but corporations can absorb
those costs. Instead, this bill would provide real consequences
for violations. Second, SB 214 would allow for a private cause
of action. He said only the attorney general can initiate a
lawsuit on a constituent's behalf in some states. He pointed out
that an attorney general might decide not to enforce this law
due to limited resources. Thus, allowing individual citizens to
present their own cases is powerful. Finally, he offered his
view that the bill was concise and precise so that individuals
could understand it.
2:00:59 PM
SENATOR MYERS pointed out that the Alaska Constitution provides
the freedom to publish, unlike the First Amendment. For example,
suppose Mark Zuckerberg published a fact check under a post, and
the bill prohibits it. He offered his view that appears to
interfere with his constitutional right to publish.
MR. TAYLOR acknowledged that he had not studied the Alaska
Constitution, but he surmised that the right to publish is not
absolute. A person would not have the right to publish
defamatory materials or something saying the theater is on fire,
so context is important. He said people communicate on social
media platforms similar to when people communicated at the
public town square, so Facebook as a platform should respect
that. He noted that there were many places and ways that
Facebook could publish. Further, when Facebook provides fact
checks, it argues that it is a platform, not a publisher and
that the media corporation is held to a different standard. He
stated that if Facebook were a publisher, it could be held more
liable for defamation or slander. He referred to a lawsuit,
Stossel v. Facebook, which alleges that when Facebook "fact
checks," it is issuing an opinion.
2:04:30 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD referred to art. I, sec. 5 of the Alaska
Constitution, relating to freedom of speech. She read, "Every
person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects,
being responsible for the abuse of that right." The stated goal
of SB 214 is to protect the users who are publishing by posting
on Facebook or some other online social networking service. She
reminded members that legislators swear to uphold and defend
individual liberties, not corporate rights. Corporations have
created social networking platforms to allow users to publish.
She expressed concern that some posts on social media are
flagged because the opinion posted differs from the fact
checker's view.
2:06:24 PM
SENATOR KIEHL understood him to say that the social media
platform owners can publish in many places and ways. However,
the bill would prohibit social media platform owners, such as
Facebook, from publishing on their platforms. He asked why
Facebook's ability to publish their opinions outside their
platform is a sufficient remedy to the government's restriction
of their ability to post their opinions on the platform itself.
MR. TAYLOR stated a significant distinction exists between
posting on a user-oriented social media platform and someone
publishing information in a newspaper, blog, or website.
Internet technology has changed how people interact. It's moved
from meeting in town squares, pubs, bars, and saloons to sharing
ideas online via social media. He reiterated that there are
small of media corporations. He alleged that these corporations
not only fact check but censor, block, and ban posts, which
stifles users from sharing their ideas on social media.
2:08:40 PM
SENATOR KIEHL pointed out that the for-profit corporations' goal
is to make money. He highlighted that people still gather in
bars and restaurants to share their opinions. Some small
communities only have one bar and restaurant. He asked whether
the owner should no longer have the right to tell patrons to
take their offensive ideas outside.
MR. TAYLOR responded that this bill addresses online social
media platforms. The purpose of online social media is to share
ideas. He agreed people still fight over the Thanksgiving
dinner, meet in bars and have discussions. However, social media
has become the primary way people share ideas and information.
He agreed that the bartender or owner could tell patrons to stop
arguing about political discussions.
2:11:21 PM
MR. TAYLOR turned to the comments regarding a social media
corporation's goal to earn profits. He acknowledged that
legislatures should consider whether the government was placing
too many checks on individuals and businesses. In this case, the
US Constitution provides people with unalienable free speech
rights. Currently, people share those ideas via online social
media. Suppose corporations capture the market share and decide
they have the power to advance their political philosophy and
become de facto governments by limiting speech. He argued they
could not do so. For example, an online media platform like
Facebook could potentially buy up companies that start to
threaten them and their market share, or they may counter
complaints by telling people to create their own online social
media company. Yet very few people have the resources to do so,
he said.
2:13:11 PM
MR. TAYLOR offered his belief that corporations act in concert
to strike down competition, which happened when [the
conservative social media website] Parler was banned from using
Apple's App for hate speech, and Amazon and Google subsequently
banned it.
2:14:04 PM
SENATOR HUGHES indicated that she, her husband, and her friends
had been temporarily banned from social media. She wondered what
remedy would hold up in the courts. She pointed out that
newspapers publish people's opinions and letters, but the editor
could write an editorial to state their position on an issue.
She wondered if multinational technology companies could have a
webpage to do something similar instead of posting on the user's
page, stamping it, or making the content unavailable when there
is a difference in opinion. She related scenarios illustrating
differences of opinion regarding COVID-19 treatment. Instead of
blocking users' views, she envisioned that big tech, such as
Facebook, could post on their own web pages and use their
algorithm. In doing so, platform users could read Facebook's
comments, and readers could make up their own minds. She
mentioned several social media platforms that were not part of
the top three tech companies. She wondered if someone was
pushing Chinese propaganda or denial of the Holocaust, those
editors could warn users by posting on their own webpage. She
asked if doing so would help mitigate it so courts wouldn't
strike down the suspensions, blocks, or censures. She envisioned
that this was something social media companies could do so it
would not require a bill.
2:17:43 PM
MR. TAYLOR responded that the short answer is yes. Corporations
such as Facebook and Twitter could use algorithms and their
platform to state their opinion. However, he related his
understanding that this bill aims to prevent a large
monopolistic entity from stifling users by banning or blocking,
or fact checking, which is why it sets a minimum threshold for
the number of subscribers. The bill aims to prevent the
suppression of speech. He noted that a social media platform
owner's fact check or opinion could be wrong. He said some
allies who operate news outlets and internet media reported that
when they post anything on Facebook about global warming that
does not comport with a certain viewpoint, it will be labeled
misinformation or partially false. Further, big tech companies
will punish them by downgrading everything these allies publish
because their material is considered misleading.
SENATOR HUGHES thanked him for information about big tech
companies changing algorithms. She reiterated that nothing would
stop technology corporations like Facebook from having a post
showing the other side of the issue. She suggested that
conservative sites, like Rumble or Truth Social, could counter
Chinese propaganda by cautioning readers to beware. She asked
whether her solution would be permissible and if it would
address Senator Myers' concern about state constitutional
issues.
2:21:50 PM
MR. TAYLOR agreed that members should be cognizant, mindful, and
attentive to constitutional protections and guidance. He
deferred to Senator Reinbold. He offered his view that the bill
would not prohibit Facebook from presenting its point of view.
2:22:31 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that she drafted the bill in 2019 to
prevent the courts from setting policy since the legislative
branch sets policy. She referred to a memo from Legislative
Legal Services [from Noah Klein dated February 17, 2022]. She
read, "...it is not clear that an Alaska Court would have
personal jurisdiction over the social media website." She said
the memo says an Alaska court may dismiss a case. She referred
to another section of the memo to a sentence related to First
Amendment issues and read, "Because social media websites are
private entities and not government actors, they are entitled to
freedom of speech protections."
2:24:23 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that a webpage on a social media
platform is the publisher and is responsible for publishing. She
explained that social media platforms could advertise and
publish their opinions and potentially make billions selling
data, have free speech protections, but turn around and crush
individual users from having free speech.
SENATOR HUGHES stated that this bill says "big tech" platforms
cannot censor users, not that the legislature will indicate what
social media platform owners can say, except on user posts. She
offered her view that the bill would work.
2:25:51 PM
SENATOR KIEHL directed attention to language in the bill [page
2, lines 5-7] that specifies that using an algorithm to disfavor
a user is prohibited. He said this appears to view social media
as free speech, based on a percentage of use as to whether a
person can compel a publisher to speak or refrain from speaking
in their own business.
SENATOR KIEHL stated that in the 50s and 60s, American members
of the Communist Party were distraught because they couldn't get
their viewpoints published in mainstream newspapers because the
owners of mainstream newspapers had no interest.
2:26:46 PM
SENATOR KIEHL wondered if the Juneau Empire, the local
newspaper, should be compelled to print a letter to the editor
from one of his constituents if it said scurrilous things about
his opinions and parentage.
MR. TAYLOR answered that this bill applies to user-oriented
postings on media platforms, not newspapers. He offered his view
that federal law provides protections for social media platforms
to censure, block, and ban sexually obscene, excessively
violent, or personally harassing material. Thus, if someone were
to harass him on social media, a platform would have the ability
to stop them.
2:28:24 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for definitions of harmful content to
minors, bullying, and harassing behavior.
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that bullying and harassing already
are in statute. She offered her belief that some terms were
defined in the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996.
She deferred to Legislative Legal Services to respond.
CHAIR HOLLAND confirmed that Legislative Legal Services was not
online.
2:29:33 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked why there are no protections for speech for
those under the age of 18 if the intent is to treat private for-
profit social media as public squares and allow them to take
over social media.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked him to restate the question.
SENATOR KIEHL stated that the bill places more restrictions on
speech for a 17-year-old than a 19-year-old. He wondered why
minors under 18 years of age are not protected in the bill.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked him to identify the bill section.
2:30:40 PM
SENATOR KIEHL directed attention to the definition of a platform
user, page 3, line 14, to paragraph (3) "platform user" means an
individual over 18 years of age who resides in the state and
contracts with a social media platform;"."
MR. TAYLOR related his understanding that minors must have
parental consent to have a Facebook page. He hoped the issue
would be worked on in the committee process. He recalled Senator
Kiehl referred to a public takeover of social media. Instead, he
offered his view that the bill says social media platforms
cannot restrict or stifle anyone's free unalienable speech
rights.
2:32:29 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD recalled that she agreed to Facebook's broad
terms of use when she set up her Facebook page. She wondered if
the terms of use were limited to adults so that minors couldn't
agree to the terms. She offered to research it and report to the
committee.
2:33:18 PM
SENATOR MYERS related his understanding that the sponsor viewed
the social media postings as the new public square discussions.
He asked whether the sponsor considered it wrong for somebody to
stifle speech in the new public square.
MR. TAYLOR agreed it was largely so.
SENATOR REINBOLD interjected that it would have parameters.
2:33:56 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked whether a comment section also qualifies as
the new public square.
MR. TAYLOR responded that social media platforms, by definition,
have comment sections. People can comment back and forth on the
topic when someone posts something unless the platform user
blocks that person from posting on their page. For example,
sometimes, he posts about public policy issues on platforms such
as Facebook. Occasionally, a longtime friend will disagree with
his political opinion, and that friend can choose to block them;
any user can choose to block someone.
2:34:32 PM
MR. TAYLOR noted that Section 230 of the Federal Communications
Decency Act gave social media platforms the ability to censor
postings containing sexually obscene material, excessively
violent, or other material. Congress mentioned in its findings
that the purpose of the law is to protect and encourage user
decisions as to what information would be shared and received so
that the platform user would have as much control over that
process as possible. That's why it's important to ensure that
social media platform corporations don't use their power
nefariously to prevent people from sharing opinions.
2:36:47 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD offered her view that whoever publishes
comments must be responsible for disseminating them. She noted
that Facebook encourages political figures to provide rules and
guidelines that users must abide by to prevent users from
harassing or posting hate messages. She related that Facebook
advised her that they would shut down her political Facebook
page unless she followed their rules.
2:38:12 PM
SENATOR MYERS offered his view that the comments just made
helped eliminate the problem. He related his understanding that
Senator Reinbold didn't want to be responsible for comments made
on her Facebook page. Facebook doesn't want to be accountable
for platform user postings. He questioned why the bill would
allow users to delete comments, including inappropriate or
offensive ones, but not allow the social media platforms to do
so.
2:39:07 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD clarified that there is a difference between
the social media platform and the platform user or publisher.
She agreed that rules must be in place to avoid hate speech and
that users must have decorum. She noted that the Facebook
platform allows people to avoid hate speech by unfriending or
blocking someone's posting on their page.
2:39:54 PM
SENATOR SHOWER joined the meeting.
2:39:55 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said social media issues are continually
emerging, but this bill specifically relates to the platform.
She characterized the social media platform rules as similar to
rules in a courtroom that allow people to exchange ideas but
maintain decorum.
2:40:49 PM
MR. TAYLOR offered his view that social media platform owners
have been inconsistent. For example, sometimes they define
themselves as platforms, and at other times they describe
themselves as publishers. He stated that social media platforms
are user-oriented. He maintained that Facebook allows users to
operate platforms to share information, and platform users
control their own space. He clarified that platform user
postings are not Facebook's opinions because the social media
platform owner has its publisher business model. He acknowledged
that intricacies exist with social media platforms.
2:42:03 PM
SENATOR KIEHL noted that under SB 214, the comment section on
the New York Times and What's App would fit the definition of
"social media platform" because they are internet websites or
applications that enable users to communicate with each other by
posting comments, and they have more than 5,000,000 subscribers.
He offered his view that today's discussion has shifted from
describing social media platform activities and what's written
in the bill.
SENATOR KIEHL referred to page 2, [lines 5-6] of the bill that
states "the owner or operator of a social media platform may not
intentionally fact check ...." He said he was unclear about the
definition of an unintentional fact check. It further states
that this section does not apply when something comes from an
inauthentic source. He asked how the social media platform would
determine inauthentic sources if it could not fact check.
2:43:18 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD read the definition of "social media platform"
in paragraph (8), beginning on page 3, line 31 through page 4,
line 6, which read:
(8) "social media platform" means an Internet website
or application that enables users to communicate with
each other by posting information, comments, messages,
or images and that
(A) is open to the public;
(B) has more than 5,000,000 subscribers; and
(C) has not been specifically associated
with any single religion or political party
since the inception of the Internet website
or application.
2:43:51 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked him to repeat the second part of his
question.
2:44:03 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that the bill prohibits the platform from
fact checking, but it doesn't apply if what's at issue comes
from an inauthentic source. He asked how social media platforms
would determine an inauthentic source without fact checking.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked him to cite the language in the bill.
SENATOR KIEHL directed attention to the interplay on page 2,
line 6, and page 2, line 31.
2:44:34 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND noted that line 21 read "(6) comes from an
inauthentic source or involves impersonation."
2:44:47 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated that the language [on page 2, lines 5-6]
that prohibits intentional fact check confines it to a platform
user's religious or political speech, so it would not broadly
apply.
2:45:15 PM
MR. TAYLOR related his understanding of an inauthentic source
would be someone impersonating someone else. He argued that the
New York Times was not a social media platform but a newspaper
or publication. Its website wasn't established to allow people
to communicate with one another in the same way as Facebook or
Twitter. He read a portion of Sec. 09.68.055 (a) on page 2,
lines 6-8.
... may not intentionally fact check, delete, or use
an algorithm to disfavor, shadow ban, or otherwise
censor the religious or political speech of a platform
user.
2:46:29 PM
MR. TAYLOR envisioned that a social media platform owner could
not label something "partially false" and then downgrade the
person's account because it would limit the platform user from
sharing information. He related his understanding that the bill
would address those issues.
2:47:14 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD noted that the language on page 2, line 6
differed from page 2, line 31. She referred to Sec. 09.68.055,
and read:
Sec. 09.68.055. Civil liability for censorship of
speech by a social media platform. (a) Except as
provided in (g) of this section, the owner or operator
of a social media platform may not intentionally fact
check, delete, or use an algorithm to disfavor, shadow
ban, or otherwise censor the religious or political
speech of a platform user.
2:47:44 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD cautioned members to consider the difference
between the social media platform operator from the platform
user. She directed attention to subsection (f), which she read
earlier in the meeting.
2:48:03 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD noted that the social media platform owner
could ban, delete, or censor platform users if they engage in
any of the speech in subsection (f), paragraphs (1)-(9), such as
encouraging users to engage in self-harm. She emphasized
distinguishing between the social media platform owner and the
platform user.
2:48:53 PM
SENATOR HUGHES directed attention to page 1, line 6 of Version
I, and suggested that the committee probably would need to
define "fact check." It would be important to investigate
whether someone was impersonating a political figure, so that
type of fact checking would be permissible.
2:49:23 PM
SENATOR HUGHES directed attention to page 4, lines 1-6 of the
definition of "social media platform," which should be better
defined to clarify as Senator Kiehl pointed out that an online
newspaper, such as the New York Times, could fit under the
current definition because of their prolific commenters. She
suggested that fixing that would be by adding language that
identifies the primary purpose of internet websites or
applications to enable users to communicate with each other. She
offered her view that online newspapers' primary purpose was to
provide news, not enable platform users to hold conversations.
2:50:32 PM
MR. TAYLOR applauded the committee for taking up this topic
because the platform users would like something to be done. He
said he hoped that committee discussions would solve the issues
raised today.
2:51:06 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD referred to page 2, line 31, to paragraph (6),
which read, "...comes from an inauthentic source or involves
impersonation." She noted that inauthentic could also include
bots or trolls, some type of non-person response. One of the
reasons she brought this bill up was to put something in place
before the election. She read a portion of the legislative
findings and social media platform algorithms to illustrate her
belief that SB 214 will protect religious and political speech
and prevent malicious interference in state elections.
2:53:10 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 214 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB157 Sectional Analysis 021522.pdf |
SJUD 3/28/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/1/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB157 Sponsor Statement 033121.pdf |
SJUD 3/28/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/1/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 Fiscal Note.PDF |
SJUD 3/28/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/1/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 Legislative Legal Memo 3.31.21.pdf |
SJUD 3/28/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/1/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| SB 214 Sponsor Statement 2.28.22.pdf |
SJUD 3/28/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/10/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 214 |
| Legal Memo 2-17-22.pdf |
SJUD 3/28/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 214 |
| SB 34 Amendment G.1.pdf |
SJUD 3/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 Amendment G.2.pdf |
SJUD 3/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 Amendment G.3.pdf |
SJUD 3/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |