A bill that would protect free speech on social media platforms was considered in the Oklahoma Senate this year. OK SB 1996 establishes a cause of action for social media website users whose content has been deleted or censored based on their political or religious speech. Senate Bill 1996 also requires social media websites to maintain consistency in their application of censorship and speech standards and protects qualified candidates for elected office from censorship and content throttling.
SB 1996 attempts to address issues related to social media censorship as well as the issue of censorship by algorithms used by Big Tech companies by allowing citizens to pursue a private right of action in court if they can prove they have been de-platformed for expressing nonviolent opinions.
Under SB 1996, a successful private right of action brought by a social media website user could result in as much as $75,000 in statutory damages. This figure is paramount when it comes to subject matter jurisdiction. Residents of Oklahoma, along with most other Americans, do not live in a state in which any of the nation’s largest tech giants are headquartered. By allowing people to seek statutory damages totaling $75,000, Sooner State residents would be eligible to file suit in federal court, where $75,000 is the minimum threshold for a diversity of citizenship case.
However, SB 1996 states that a social media website that “restores from deletion or removes the censoring of a social media website user’s speech in a reasonable amount of time may use that fact to mitigate any damages.”
Although SB 1996 would expand users’ rights substantially, social media companies would still be permitted to impose community standards. The bill states that a social media website may not be found liable when a user fails to adhere to “contemporary community standards,” such as calling for immediate acts of violence, posting content that contains obscene material or material harmful to minors, or engages in any speech that excites criminal conduct or involves the bullying of minors.
Furthermore, SB 1996 stipulates that a social media website may not deplatform a candidate for office who is known by the social media website to be a candidate, beginning on the date of qualification and ending on the date of the election or the date the candidate ceases to be a candidate.
This Oklahoma bill is necessary for the protection of constituents’ First Amendment rights, as it is undeniable that social media platforms have become the modern day “town square.” These platforms provide one of the largest means of communication between people, businesses, all levels of government, and elected officials.
However, this mass communications network is managed by a small handful of large technology firms that are protected from liability and functionally operate as monopolies. Though these platforms have empowered people across the political spectrum, they have also given great power to those who seek to divide, misinform, and manipulate the public.
According to the Pew Research Center, roughly three-quarters of U.S. adults believe it is likely social media sites intentionally censor opinions and viewpoints that do not fall in line with Big Tech’s preferred ideology and political positions.
This supposition has been proven to be true through the release of the Twitter Files and Mark Zuckerberg’s recent letter to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.
According to Zuckerberg’s letter, senior officials from the Biden administration repeatedly pressured him and his employees at Meta to censor certain COVID-19-related content. The tech CEO also admitted to censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 election due to government pressure.
The Murthy v. Missouri litigation and the Judiciary Committee’s online censorship investigation have produced documents that corroborate all of Zuckerberg’s claims— from their initial resistance to censorship demands from Biden administration officials, to the eventual caving and politically driven censorship.
Zuckerberg’s admission falls in line with what we saw with the release of the Twitter Files, which showcased the government’s involvement in mandating COVID-19 “misinformation” on Twitter be removed and revealed that the FBI worked in tandem with Twitter to promulgate certain narratives, including the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story in the days leading up to the 2020 election.
Aside from the clear use of these social media platforms as political tools meant to sway elections, these stories emphasize the hypocrisy of social media platforms, specifically their claims of being simply bulletin boards or conduits for free speech that provide no editorial component.
This claim insulates these social media platforms from liability under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Although, it is evident that these platforms do indeed operate in an editorial capacity based upon their censorious activities.
Based upon this censorship, state legislators around the country have attempted to take a swing at Big Tech in the name of free speech for their constituents. Since 2020, 70 bills have been introduced throughout the country with this purpose in mind, including Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 1996.
Legislators in Texas and Florida successfully passed online free speech bills into law that created state-based repercussions when social media platforms engage in censorship based on viewpoint discrimination. However, Big Tech lobbyists sued to stop the new laws, leading to a multi-year legal battle that ultimately appeared before the United States Supreme Court.
Oral arguments for both laws were held in February 2024, before the Supreme Court ruled to return both cases back to the lower courts, noting that the social media companies failed to provide sufficient evidence for the facial challenge that they brought before the Court. Ultimately, the Court signaled that no part of either legislation was unconstitutional, as Big Tech lobbyists had asserted.
These SCOTUS rulings ultimately leave room for the Texas and Florida laws, and bills like OK SB 1996, to eventually set an important precedent for online free speech and the First Amendment protections that Americans deserve.
Senate Bill 1996 should also continue to spur a state-based and national debate on the role of Big Tech in our civic discourse. After all, Big Tech ideologues wield near-total power over the dissemination of information in today’s social media-centric environment, and more speech, not less speech, is always better in a free society.
The following document provides more information about Big Tech censorship principles.
Six Principles for State Legislators Seeking to Protect Free Speech on Social Media Platforms
James Taylor, president of The Heartland Institute, writes six principles to protect free speech in light of social media censorship. Political free speech in the United States is under attack. Tech media giants who own and control virtually all social media platforms available to Americans are working together to silence groups with whom they do not agree.
Why Big Tech Censorship Is Super Scary
Samantha Fillmore, senior state government relations manager at the Hartland Institute, writes about the dangers of censorship in a free society in this op-ed.
Pew Research Center: Most Americans Think Social Media Sites Censor Political Viewpoints
The Pew Research Center studied the role of technology and technology companies in Americans’ lives. This study was conducted to understand Americans’ views about the role of major technology companies in the political landscape. Majorities in both major parties believe censorship is likely occurring.
The Cato Institute surveyed 2,000 Americans regarding social media’s use of censorship and contact moderation. The survey finds that 75% of Americans do not trust social media companies to make a fair content moderation decisions and would prefer that social media companies provide users with a greater choice and control over the content they are delivered in their feeds.
The Yale Journal on Regulation takes up the Supreme Court case between Texas House Bill 20 and NetChoice – the lobbying group for online social media platforms. Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington of The Yale Journal on Regulation contend that NetChoice’s argument of unconstitutionality against the Texas Bill conflict severely with Supreme Court First Amendment precedence.
The Twitter files are a series of leaked internal documents from Twitter, Inc. These files were published from December 2022 through March 2023 on the platform by journalist Matt Taibbi. The Twitter files revealed several things most notably, the collusion between the federal government and social media companies, specifically on the issue of censorship. It was found that through selected censorship the federal government aimed to control the narrative on the social media platform.
Heartland Impact can send an expert to your state to testify or brief your caucus; host an event in your state; or send you further information on a topic. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance! If you have any questions or comments, contact Cameron Sholty, at csholty@heartlandimpact.org or 312/377-4000.
