BILL: Ban Gov. Employees From Censoring Free Speech? - Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act - H.R.140

Do you support the GOP's bill to ban government censorship?

  • 41.9k
    jimK
    03/28/2023

    This is another dumb-ass legislative proposal from the Republican Cartel’s House members. Perhaps they should read the Constitution before introducing legislation that intends to supersede the first amendment.  Sometimes, I really wonder if they have any clue about how our democratic governance is supposed to work. Perhaps we need to publish a “US Government for Dummy’s” handbook and require each of them to actually read it.

    First of all ‘free speech’ is the right to express an opinion based on information believed to be factual and was not and never was intended to be a license to knowingly create or willfully spread disinformation for profit, for political self-benefit, to foment illegal acts, or to otherwise restrict the rights and freedoms of others.  That’s why false claims made by advertisers are restricted, and why people or companies that intentionally lie to the public for money are considered to be committing fraud.

    This Republican Cartel’s House proposed legislation is merely a means to continue to spread their ‘organic fertilizer’ to continue to grow their field of alternate reality lies for political self-benefit without interference. I found it particularly obscene that Katie Porter’s proposed amendment to protect scientific findings and technical data from censorship was blocked. Hello autocracy!

    The intentional spread of disinformation in this country by political parties and adversarial governments has become a plague to our democratic governance and something must be done. Allowing government officials the right to censor social media or public media sites can easily be exploited and that is not the answer.

    I would prefer the establishment of citizen’s groups, kind of a journalistic ‘grand jury’ made up with an equitable balance of journalistic practitioners, academics and concerned citizen’s to transparently field complaints and make ethical judgements regarding broad categories or patterns of misinformation which are spread that are adjudged to be generally apolitically harmful to the populace and the country. These panels could be formed at various governmental levels as needed. They could then make recommendations regarding the damage of wrongful or highly unethical practices and recommend restrictions that may need to  be imposed. These recommendations can then be reviewed by bicameral government panels (at the appropriate governmental levels for the panels) to assess the legality of the recommendations and advise on actions that may be required.

    Of course, there needs to be rules of engagement and mechanisms to protect such panels from becoming spokespersons for political parties or for big money influence.

    While I am sure that this is a way to address our plague of mal-information, I am not completely sure that it is the best way.  However, I do feel that getting equitably balanced citizen’s groups heavily involved in the process of reacting to the willful spread of disinformation, including hate speech and advocating taking action for such things as enforcing White Supremacy or Christian Nationalism, will help to protect our country from the profound damages that spreading mal-information can do to any democracy - no matter the source.

  • 46.9k
    Brian
    Voted Oppose
    03/28/2023

    I support this bill in theory, but not in practice. I don't think government officials should be allowed to censor critics on technology platforms, and I support strengthening the Hatch Act.

    However, we all know that this is one-sided for the Republican sponsors of this bill. When their cult leader was president they  had no interest in enforcing the Hatch Act, and they repeatedly complained about censorship while they themselves and their cult leader were trying to block critics on social media.

    Unless there's a mechanism to ensure officials from BOTH parties will enforce this law equally no matter who is involved, then it's just symbolic victimhood from the right.

  • 1,020
    JoeandPeggy
    Voted Support
    05/02/2023

    I was of the understanding that this country was in favor of free speech even if everone does not agree with what is said.

    Guess not, huh?

  • 8,606
    M
    03/28/2023

    This isn't the correct approach. Anyone can ask a social media company to remove content.

    The problem here is most of the masses of people think censorship of their speech on social media is a violation of their free speech. They are wrong. These are privately held companies and you use them with a their house, their rules policy. People don't seem to understand that. You the people don't make the rules there. You have free speech to stand on a street corner and say your peace as far as your voice can travel, but if someone else owns a megaphone, they don't have to let you use it. It's theirs, not yours.

    There are many way social media needs to be reigned in, but mistaking it's a source for everyone's idea of their free speech is not one of them.

  • 2,480
    Joan
    Voted Oppose
    03/28/2023

    This bad idea by the GOP is only meant to restrain any critique of their racist, homophobic, mysogynistic, and white nationalist lies. Their hate speech should be restrained and made unacceptable.

  • 50
    Amber
    Voted Support
    04/26/2023

    Another no brainer, we don't need the government telling us what we can say or do. If it doesn't cause harm then why be apart of it. 

  • 158
    Jonathan
    Voted Oppose
    05/17/2023

    Please vote NO

     

    I echo Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.) who said that the bill was redundant and unnecessary because of protections already provided under the First Amendment:
    “This bill purports to protect free speech from government censorship. And I agree, it’s a great idea. It’s such a good idea, in fact, that the Founding Fathers put it in the Constitution. It’s called the First Amendment.”

  • 147
    Jeffrey
    Voted Oppose
    05/11/2023

    We're talking about banning government officials from banning free speech yet the government is banning free speech left and right with the cancelling of books, erasing of history and saying one side is better than the other...stop being hypocrites and work together instead of censoring people left and right.

  • 49
    Sharon
    Voted Oppose
    05/04/2023

    Th he gop is pushing this bill so they can legally lie about everything and everyone 

  • 108
    Roland
    Voted Oppose
    04/28/2023

    Bring back TRUTH and the Fairness Doctrine! 

  • 108
    Roland
    Voted Oppose
    04/28/2023

    Why is there such zeal to harm the Earth? Is capitalism the bane of our existence? 
    There are not infinite quantities of renewable natural resources in America! It is way past the time to protect our resources and environment.

    Make good on the mantra regarding what will be left to/for our grandchildren to enjoy/survive.

    It is of paramount importance that we as a country and a world respect the fragility of the planet because of the constant mining/extracting of minerals, animals, and plants depleting our environment!

    Stop subsidies to fossil fuel companies!

  • 40
    Francis
    Voted Oppose
    04/20/2023

    People shouldn't be able to share false information.

  • 68
    Thomas
    Voted Oppose
    04/16/2023

    Government must not regulate free speech of private businesses!

  • 55
    Lee
    Voted Oppose
    04/17/2023

    Disinformation is a threat to our form of government which depends on voters having accurate, honest information.

  • 353
    Debra
    Voted Support
    04/14/2023

    The way I read it is it is not the government but the employees of the government. No governmental employees should use their position to influence any public actions. The government exists to protect and serve its citizens. The citizens act to influence change. There is enough lobbying among those citizens and too much in those in governmental positions.

  • 67
    Danny
    Voted Oppose
    04/13/2023

    The first amendment already protects my free speech. We do not need another law that will only serve to protect Russian or other adversaries propaganda

  • 67
    Danny
    Voted Oppose
    04/13/2023

    The first amendment already protects my free speech.  We do not need another law that will only serve to protect Russia and China's free-speech.

  • 507
    Christopher
    Voted Oppose
    04/10/2023

    Redundant to the 1st amendment of the Constitution. It's more of a political issue rather than a free speech one where irresponsible platforms disseminate false information and conspiracy theories about everything to undermine authority and support of Government Institutions. We've seen too often how the sponsors have engaged in disinformation for their short term objectives. So no, you can't spread propaganda without consequences. 

  • 120
    Jeff
    Voted Oppose
    04/09/2023

    Weird that you jump all over this fad, but you have no problem with legal bribery from lobbyists. Smaller government indeed 

  • 120
    Jeff
    Voted Oppose
    04/09/2023

    Weird that you jump all over this new fad, but you have no problem with legal bribery from lobbyists 

  • 1,340
    Leslie
    Voted Oppose
    04/09/2023

    Sounds like someone doesn't like the first amendment 

  • 37
    Eric
    Voted Support
    04/05/2023

    Government should not censor any speech.  Banning any form of speech goes against the very fabric of what the United States stands for.  

  • 77
    Joe
    Voted Oppose
    04/05/2023

    Government employees are citizens of the United States, and have the full protection of the Cconstitution, the freedom of speech behind them!!

  • 157
    Sean
    Voted Oppose
    04/02/2023

    Great job DEMOCRATS!!    The Republicans Don't mind the racist speech because they're racist them selves also.