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

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

• Bill sponsor Comer said:

“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."

• And:

“It is inappropriate and dangerous for the federal government to decide what lawful speech is allowed on a private sector platform.” 

• Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) said: 

“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.”

• Goldman also raised possible negative consequences of the bill:

“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