A bill summary states that under existing legal precedent, plaintiffs must prove that coercion succeeded in removing or altering the content. The bill would allow plaintiffs to sue and obtain financial damages from “any government agency or employee who harasses companies involved in social media, AI or broadcasting.” without paying attention whether to make jaws is successful”
The summary states that the bill specifically authorizes financial damages, because under current law, plaintiffs can only obtain injunctions that prevent future or ongoing violations. Along with financial damages, government officials involved in unlawful censorship may be held accountable even after leaving office. The bill effectively imposes a limit on financial payments by allowing compensatory damages, but not punitive damages.
Convenient “chokepoint” for censorship.
The summary states that the bill “requires agencies to submit certain communications with social media companies, AI companies, and broadcasters to a detailed public summary and a portal with full access to Congress, which will help ensure that covert jawboning does not occur.”
The summary states that the proposed portal will help individuals prove that their rights have been violated. Without this remedy, “Plaintiffs may struggle to prove that the government has secretly communicated with the private companies it is pressuring. Americans may not even know that their government has censored them,” the summary says.
The text of the bill states that broadcasters, online services and “speech-enabled artificial intelligence systems are critical to access to information and individual expression and have the right to independent editorial decision-making. Such entities can also serve as convenient chokepoints for the government to target adverse speech and censorship of information.”
The bill defines broadcasters to include stations with FCC licenses and national TV networks that provide programming to affiliated stations. This means that coercion on local stations and national networks would violate the law.
“The word ‘coerce’ means taking harmful, hostile or adverse action, indicating the possibility of taking such action, or threatening such action,” the bill says. The proposed ban contains exceptions for legitimate investigations, enforcement of federal or state laws, and actions taken under warrants.
<a href