03/28/2022 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB34 | |
| SB214 | |
| HB157 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | SB 34 | ||
| SB 214 | |||
| HB 157 | |||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 28, 2022
1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Roger Holland, Chair
Senator Mike Shower, Vice Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Robert Myers
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 34
"An Act providing for the establishment of public schools
through state-tribal compacts."
- MOVED CSSB 34(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 214
"An Act relating to civil liability for censorship of speech by
a social media platform."
- HEARD & HELD
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 157(FIN)
"An Act requiring the disclosure of the identity of certain
persons, groups, and nongroup entities that expend money in
support of or in opposition to an application filed for a state
referendum or recall election; relating to the location of
offices for the Alaska Public Offices Commission and the
locations at which certain statements and reports filed with the
commission are made available; relating to the duties of the
Alaska Public Offices Commission; clarifying the limits on
making, accepting, and reporting certain cash campaign
contributions; relating to campaign finance reporting by certain
groups; increasing the time the Alaska Public Offices Commission
has to respond to a request for an advisory opinion; repealing a
reporting requirement for certain contributions; relating to
contribution limits and recall campaigns; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 34
SHORT TITLE: STATE-TRIBAL EDUCATION COMPACT SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STEVENS
01/25/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
01/25/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/21 (S) EDC, JUD
04/21/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/21/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/21/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
04/23/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/23/21 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/28/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/28/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/28/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
02/11/22 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/11/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/11/22 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
02/16/22 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/16/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/16/22 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
02/23/22 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/23/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/23/22 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/03/22 (S) EDC AT 10:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/03/22 (S) Heard & Held
03/03/22 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/11/22 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/11/22 (S) <Above Item Removed from Agenda>
03/11/22 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/17/22 (S) EDC AT 10:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/17/22 (S) Moved CSSB 34(EDC) Out of Committee
03/17/22 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/18/22 (S) EDC RPT CS 4DP NEW TITLE
03/18/22 (S) DP: HOLLAND, MICCICHE, STEVENS, BEGICH
03/23/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/23/22 (S) Heard & Held
03/23/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/28/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 214
SHORT TITLE: LIABILITY: SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) REINBOLD
02/22/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/22 (S) STA, JUD
03/10/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/10/22 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/17/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/17/22 (S) Heard & Held
03/17/22 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/22/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/22/22 (S) Moved CSSB 214(STA) Out of Committee
03/22/22 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/23/22 (S) STA RPT CS 4DP 1AM SAME TITLE
03/23/22 (S) DP: SHOWER, HOLLAND, COSTELLO, REINBOLD
03/23/22 (S) AM: KAWASAKI
03/28/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 157
SHORT TITLE: APOC; REPORT REFERENDA/RECALL CONTRIBUTOR
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RASMUSSEN
03/31/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/31/21 (H) STA, JUD
04/17/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/17/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/17/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/27/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/27/21 (H) Moved HB 157 Out of Committee
04/27/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/28/21 (H) FIN REPLACES JUD REFERRAL
04/28/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/28/21 (H) STA RPT 1DP 1NR 5AM
04/28/21 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS
04/28/21 (H) NR: TARR
04/28/21 (H) AM: CLAMAN, STORY, EASTMAN, KAUFMAN,
VANCE
05/03/21 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS 519
05/03/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/03/21 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/04/21 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM ADAMS 519
05/04/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/04/21 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/13/21 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM ADAMS 519
05/13/21 (H) Moved CSHB 157(FIN) Out of Committee
05/13/21 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/14/21 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NEW TITLE 4DP 5NR
05/14/21 (H) DP: LEBON, JOSEPHSON, RASMUSSEN,
MERRICK
05/14/21 (H) NR: ORTIZ, CARPENTER, THOMPSON, WOOL,
FOSTER
05/19/21 (H) LIMIT ALL DEBATE TO 2 MIN EACH Y23 N16
E1
05/19/21 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
05/19/21 (H) VERSION: CSHB 157(FIN)
01/18/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/22 (S) STA, JUD
01/21/22 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
02/17/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/17/22 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/01/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/01/22 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/03/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/03/22 (S) Heard & Held
03/03/22 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/24/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/24/22 (S) Moved CSHB 157(FIN) Out of Committee
03/24/22 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/25/22 (S) STA RPT 3DP
03/25/22 (S) DP: SHOWER, HOLLAND, COSTELLO
03/28/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM LAMKIN, Staff
Senator Gary Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of the sponsor
of SB 34.
SENATOR LORA REINBOLD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 214.
JAMES TAYLOR, President
Heartland Institute
Chicago, Illinois
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of SB
214.
REPRESENTATIVE SARA RASMUSSEN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 157.
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff
Representative Sara Rasmussen
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for HB 157
on behalf of the sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:34:35 PM
CHAIR ROGER HOLLAND called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Myers, Hughes, Kiehl, and Chair Holland.
Senator Shower arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 34-STATE-TRIBAL EDUCATION COMPACT SCHOOLS
1:35:08 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 34
"An Act providing for the establishment of public schools
through state-tribal compacts."
[CSSB 34(EDC) was before the committee. SB 34 was previously
heard on 3/23/22.]
1:35:42 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony on SB 34; finding none, he
closed public testimony on SB 34.
1:36:19 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 32-
LS0390\G.1.
32-LS0309\G.1
Marx
3/24/22
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HOLLAND
TO: CSSB 34(EDC)
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "January 31, 2029"
Insert "June 30, 2026"
1:36:25 PM
SENATOR MYERS objected for discussion purposes.
CHAIR HOLLAND explained that Amendment 1 would change the
deadline for the legislature to pass enabling legislation from
January 31, 2029, to Juneau 30, 2026. He stated that this would
still allow an entire legislative cycle for the legislature to
consider the recommendations of the state-tribal education
compact. However, it would set an expectation that the
legislature should not delay enacting legislation for five
years.
SENATOR MYERS removed his objection.
1:37:07 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND found no further objection, and Amendment 1 was
adopted.
1:37:18 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND moved to adopt Amendment 2, work order 32-
LS0309\G.2.
32-LS0309\G.2
Marx
3/24/22
AMENDMENT 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HOLLAND
TO: CSSB 34(EDC)
Page 2, lines 1 - 3:
Delete "all other federally recognized tribes and
tribal organizations that will be a party to the
demonstration state-tribal education compact"
Insert "the tribal organizations, if any, that
will participate in the negotiation on behalf of or in
conjunction with the federally recognized tribe"
1:37:22 PM
SENATOR MYERS objected for discussion purposes.
1:37:25 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND explained that Amendment 2 was a technical fix.
The current version of the bill makes it sound as though the
federally recognized tribe must know every other tribe
participating in the negotiation. This language initially
referenced a joint application, but it is no longer relevant
under the more open negotiation process included in the current
version of the bill.
1:37:52 PM
SENATOR MYERS removed his objection.
CHAIR HOLLAND heard no further objection, and Amendment 2 was
adopted.
1:38:04 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Amendment 3, work order 32-
LS0309\G.3
32-LS0309\G.3
Klein
3/25/22
AMENDMENT 3
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR KIEHL
TO: CSSB 34(EDC)
Page 2, line 7, following "compact.":
Insert "The board shall consult with the
governing body of each school district that will have
a demonstration state-tribal education compact school
located within the district boundaries."
1:38:09 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.
1:38:13 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained that Amendment 3 would place the
obligation on the Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED) to involve school districts that have a demonstration
site within their district boundaries early in the negotiation
process.
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that he did not see any issue with
Amendment 3 but would maintain his objection for discussion
purposes.
1:38:44 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether "consult" means that the school
districts will be at the table for the discussions but would not
participate in the negotiations.
SENATOR KIEHL responded that this does not give school districts
a veto. The negotiating parties would be the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) and the federally
recognized tribes and tribal organizations. He suggested that
because the negotiated state-tribal education compact will come
back to the legislature for enactment, it would be essential to
have the local school district involved.
1:39:40 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND removed his objection; he found no further
objection, and Amendment 3 was adopted.
1:40:00 PM
TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, on behalf of the sponsor, said
Senator Stevens agrees to the amendments since they align with
the overall inclusivity of the bill. In addition, the sponsor
believes that the amendments would tighten up the state-tribal
education compact timeline.
1:40:29 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to report CSSB 34(EDC), work order 32-
LS0309\G, as amended, from committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR HOLLAND heard no objection, and CSSB 34(JUD) was reported
from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:40:53 PM
At ease
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.
HB 157-APOC; REPORT REFERENDA/RECALL CONTRIBUTOR
2:53:17 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL
NO. 157(FIN) "An Act requiring the disclosure of the identity of
certain persons, groups, and nongroup entities that expend money
in support of or in opposition to an application filed for a
state referendum or recall election; relating to the location of
offices for the Alaska Public Offices Commission and the
locations at which certain statements and reports filed with the
commission are made available; relating to the duties of the
Alaska Public Offices Commission; clarifying the limits on
making, accepting, and reporting certain cash campaign
contributions; relating to campaign finance reporting by certain
groups; increasing the time the Alaska Public Offices Commission
has to respond to a request for an advisory opinion; repealing a
reporting requirement for certain contributions; relating to
contribution limits and recall campaigns; and providing for an
effective date."
2:53:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARA RASMUSSEN, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, paraphrased the sponsor statement.
[Original punctuation provided.]
House Bill 157 moves the statutory boundary for
disclosing certain contributions and expenditures from
those made to influence a referendum or recall
election to an earlier point in the statutory process.
It will require the reporting of certain campaign
finance activity prior to the collection of
signatures. This will align both the recall/referendum
reporting requirements with reporting requirements for
ballot initiatives.
Aligning reporting requirements will help the
electorate make informed decisions, impose varying
requirements based on type and level of advocacy, and
otherwise embody the features that the Ninth Circuit
identified in electioneering disclosure laws that
survive exacting scrutiny under the First Amendment.
According to Legislative Legal, "this bill's expansion
of disclosure requirements in the recall and
referendum context will likely survive a First
Amendment challenge."
House Bill 157 will streamline reporting requirements
to regain and maintain the public's trust in our
election process.
2:55:11 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Sara Rasmussen, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional
analysis for HB 157 on behalf of the sponsor.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Section 1: AS 15.13.010(b) Applicability related to
State Election Campaigns. Adds language to the
applicability section that state the chapter applies
to contributions, expenditures, and communications
that are made to influence the nomination or election
of a candidate. And for the purpose of influencing a
ballot proposition or question or for supporting or
opposing and initiative proposal, recall, or
referendum.
Section 2: AS 15.13.020(j) Alaska Public Offices
Commission. Removes the requirement for an APOC office
to be located in each Senate District.
2:56:11 PM
Section 3: AS 15.13.030 Duties of the commission.
Removes the word "ALL" from the phrase "examine,
investigate, and compare [all] reports, statements,
and actions required by this chapter."
Sections 4-8: AS 15.13.040(b), 15.13.072(b), and
15.13.074(e). Clarifies that contributions and
expenditures are in a calendar year instead of left
open ended.
Section 5: AS 15.13.050(a) Registration before
expenditure. Adds language regarding referendums or
recalls to the statute that requires persons to
register with APOC prior to making an expenditure.
Section 6: AS 15.13.065(c) Contributions. Adds
language related to referendum and recall applications
to what is included in the definition of proposition.
2:57:22 PM
Section 9: AS 15.13.110(e) Filing of Reports.
Rewrites the language related to those receiving or
making expenditures to support or oppose referendums.
This language is identical to the language contained
in AS 15.13.040(k) for ballot proposition reporting
requirements and AS 15.13.110(g) for ballot initiative
reporting requirements.
Section 10: AS 15.13.110 Filing of Reports. Adds a
new subsection (k) for those receiving or making
expenditures to support or oppose a recall. This
language is similar to Section 4 of this bill and AS
15.13.040(k) for ballot proposition reporting
requirements and AS 15.13.110(g) for ballot initiative
reporting requirements.
(This is the conforming language to align the
recall/referendum reporting requirement with the
ballot props and initiatives. Section 12 14 are
modify definitions to include the new language for
recall and referendums.)
2:58:09 PM
Sections 12-14: AS 15.13.400(4), and (7)
Definitions. Modifies the definition of
"contributions" to include groups and referendum and
recall applications, modifies the definition of
"expenditures" to include referendum and recall
applications, and modifies the definition of "group"
to include referendum and recall applications.
Sections 15-16: AS 24.45.091 Publication of reports.
Provides for publication of reports and archives of
statements and reports to be posted on their website
as well as have copies available at the central
office.
Section 17: Repeals AS 15.13.040(k). Provides that
recall applications are subject to group contribution
limitations whereas referendum applications are not.
Section 18: Uncodified law. States that this Act
applies only to referendums or recalls that are filed
on or after the effective date of this Act.
Sections 19: Provides for a January 1, 2022 effective
date.
2:59:47 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to Section 6, page 4, lines 29-30, which
would exclude recall applications and recall questions from the
reporting requirements. He asked why the bill treats initiatives
and referenda differently from recall petitions.
MS. KOENEMAN responded that this section deals with
propositions, so there is a difference between ballot
propositions, initiatives, and recall petitions. It clearly
states what is included within that ballot proposition.
3:00:36 PM
SENATOR KIEHL offered his view that it was a good bill on the
whole. He referred to Section 8 on page 5. He recalled that
before the bill, the maximum amount for a cash contribution to a
campaign was $100 in the last 18 months, and this changed it to
a calendar year. He asked whether, hypothetically, a campaign
could take in twice as much cash from an individual.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN answered that this lines it up with
what was previously the $100 cash limit to keep parity between
candidates on the cash rule. Obviously, that may have been
challenged by recent APOC and Judiciary announcements. She
anticipated that Ms. Koeneman could expand on that ruling.
3:02:00 PM
MS. KOENEMAN related her understanding that APOC has interpreted
the statutes as a calendar year because the statutes don't
identify a date, so APOC's practice will not change under the
bill.
3:02:33 PM
SENATOR KIEHL noted that while limits on cash contributions are
important, he did not believe the difference between $100 and
$200 increases the risk for corruption. He directed attention to
Section 10, lines 24-25, related to a committee or group
supporting or opposing a recall of a public official in a
statewide election, or a recall application filed under AS
15.45.480. He asked why it would apply to both because AS
15.45.480 includes the governor and lieutenant governor in
statewide elections.
3:03:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN offered her belief that this would
apply to legislative candidates and statewide elections. She
recalled that the House floor debated about whether to apply
this to statewide elections but decided all statewide and
legislative candidates should have similar reporting rules.
3:04:03 PM
SENATOR KIEHL acknowledged that he had missed that aspect.
3:04:16 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated that he would review the bill to ensure
that nothing was missed in terms of reporting requirements. He
echoed Senator Kiehl's assessment that HB 157 is a good bill.
3:05:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN offered her willingness to examine the
bill to identify any provisions that need to be updated. For
example, it might be appropriate to consider some reporting
requirement dates. Currently, individual campaigns must file
reports in the middle of the legislative session. However, these
reporting requirements coincide with the budget process. After
discussing this with APOC, the commission agreed that some of
those reporting dates could be adjusted to achieve transparency
but not interfere with legislative budget deliberations.
3:05:55 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held HB 157 in committee.
3:06:11 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Holland adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:06 p.m.
| 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 |