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?
BILL
H.R.140 - Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act
Bill Status
- Sponsored by James Comer (R-Ky.) on Jan. 9, 2023
- Committees: House - Oversight & Accountability | Senate - Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs
- Latest Action: Received in the Senate: March 14, 2023
- House: Passed
- Senate: Not yet passed
- President: Not yet signed
Bill Overview
- Aims to prohibit federal employees from censoring the speech and content of private entities, particularly on social media platforms.
- Defines censor or censorship as influencing or coercing an individual or entity to remove or modify lawful speech with respect to social media and other forms of public discourse.
- The bill states:
“It is the policy of the Congress that employees acting in their official capacity should neither take action within their authority or influence to promote the censorship of any lawful speech, nor advocate that a third party, including a private entity, censor such speech."
What's in the Bill?
Expands the Hatch Act
- The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activities in their official capacity and this bill would expand those restrictions to prohibit federal employees from censoring lawful speech
- Employees who violate the law are subject to disciplinary action, civil penalties, five-year debarment from federal service, or a fine of up to $1,000 for violations. The bill allows exceptions for law enforcement in certain contexts.
Prohibits employees of executive agencies from censoring a private entity whether on or off duty
- Disallows employees of federal agencies from censoring a private entity while on duty, wearing a uniform, while in a government building or vehicle, or while using official government property. The bill also prohibits censorship of lawful speech outside of normal duty hours.
- Censoring includes taking action to coerce a private entity to remove, suppress, restrict, or add disclaimers or alerts to lawful speech.
Seeks to limit government suppression on social media
- The bill is a reaction to what some Republican politicians believe is government meddling in social media platforms, including efforts to remove unsavory or controversial opinions, which some politicians say include topics like COVID-19 and Hunter Biden.
- The sponsors, which also include Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) says they have examples of times when the Biden Administration “used their positions, influence, and resources to police and censor ordinary Americans’ speech expressed on social media platforms.”
Does not impact lawful actions against unlawful speech
- Censorship or engaging in lawful actions against speech deemed unlawful is not impacted by this bill, and the officials can still perform “legitimate law enforcement functions,” such as combating child pornography and safeguarding national security.
- Should an agent move to censor unlawful speech, they should file a report within 72 hours that details "an overview of the action, or actions, to be taken, including a summary of the action being taken and the rationale for why a censorship action is necessary."
What Supporters are Saying
“To protect the First Amendment, the Protect Speech from Government Interference Act stops federal employees from pressuring social media companies to silence Americans expressing views online."
“It is inappropriate and dangerous for the federal government to decide what lawful speech is allowed on a private sector platform.”
“This is what H.R. 140 is seeking to stop, is government actors putting their own thought processes on short-circuiting the process of legitimate debate and open conversation amongst the American people."
What Opponents are Saying
- Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.) 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.”
“H.R. 140 would effectively allow these and other foreign malign actors — who have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into online propaganda — to create chaos, mistrust, hate and confusion for Americans, to continue using social media platforms unfettered to wreak havoc on our democratic institutions, including the integrity of our elections.”
- Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to exempt scientific and technical information from the bill’s definition of censorship so that the government could still provide disclaimers on potentially inaccurate information, but her amendment was defeated.
—Emma Kansiz
The Latest
-
The Long Arc: Taking Action in Times of Change“Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.” Martin Luther King Jr. Today in read more... Advocacy
-
Thousands Displaced as Climate Change Fuels Wildfire Catastrophe in Los AngelesIt's been a week of unprecedented destruction in Los Angeles. So far the Palisades, Eaton and other fires have burned 35,000 read more... Environment
-
Puberty, Privacy, and PolicyOn December 11, the Montana Supreme Court temporarily blocked SB99 , a law that sought to ban gender-affirming care for read more... LGBTQIA+
-
Women Are Shaping This Election — Why Is the Media Missing It?As we reflect on the media coverage of this election season, it’s clear that mainstream outlets have zeroed in on the usual read more... Elections
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Th he gop is pushing this bill so they can legally lie about everything and everyone
Bring back TRUTH and the Fairness Doctrine!
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!
People shouldn't be able to share false information.
Government must not regulate free speech of private businesses!
Disinformation is a threat to our form of government which depends on voters having accurate, honest information.
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.
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
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.
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.
Weird that you jump all over this fad, but you have no problem with legal bribery from lobbyists. Smaller government indeed
Weird that you jump all over this new fad, but you have no problem with legal bribery from lobbyists
Sounds like someone doesn't like the first amendment
Government should not censor any speech. Banning any form of speech goes against the very fabric of what the United States stands for.
Government employees are citizens of the United States, and have the full protection of the Cconstitution, the freedom of speech behind them!!
Great job DEMOCRATS!! The Republicans Don't mind the racist speech because they're racist them selves also.