A bill that protects elected officials and candidates on social media is currently in the New Jersey Assembly. NJ Assembly Bill 180 contends that a social media website shall not willfully or selectively suspend a candidate who is a known candidate for political office. Beginning on the date that the candidate declares an intent to seek election to public office or party office and ending on the date of the election or the date the candidate ceases to be a candidate.
Furthermore, the social media websites shall provide each user a method by which they may be identified as a qualified candidate that also provides, “sufficient information” to allow the social media website to confirm the user’s qualification as a candidate by reviewing campaign websites, the Division of Elections in the Department of State, the New Jersey Election Law Commission, or the Internet website of the local board of elections, as necessary.
The bill also stipulates that a social media website that willfully provides free advertising for a candidate shall inform the candidate of the in-kind contribution and comply with The New Jersey Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Reporting Act. However, posts, content, material, and comments by candidates on social media websites that are shown the same as other users’ posts, content, material, and comments shall not be considered free advertising.
A violation of this bill by social media websites may incur a penalty of $250,000 per day for a violation affecting a candidate for statewide office and $25,000 per day for a violation affecting a candidate for other offices. These violations and penalties would be enforced by the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission.
This New Jersey bill is necessary for the protection of candidates as it is undeniable that social media platforms have become the modern day “town square”. They provide one of the largest means of communication between people, businesses, all levels of government, and elected officials.
However, this mass communication network is managed by just a handful of large tech 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.
And Americans can see the writing on the wall. 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 hypothesis has been completely proved to be true through the release of the twitter files, and through Mark Zuckerberg’s recent letter to Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) Chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.
According to Zuckerberg’s letter, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured him and his teams at Meta to censor certain COVID-19 content. The tech CEO also admitted to censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 election.
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 clear politically driven censorship.
Zuckerberg’s admission falls in line with what we saw with the release of the Twitter Files, which also showcased the government’s involvement in mandating COVID-19 “misinformation” on Twitter and revealed that the FBI was working in tandem with Twitter to promulgate certain narratives, and the suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop story, 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 and their claim that they are simply bulletin boards or conduits for user speech and that they maintain 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 because they clearly engage in censorship, these platforms do clearly operate in an editorial capacity.
In the midst of all of this clear censorship, state legislators around the country attempted to take a swing at big tech in the name of free speech for their constituents. Since 2020, 70 bills have been introduced across the country with this purpose in mind, including New Jersey’s Assembly Bill 180.
Texas and Florida legislators successfully passed online free speech bills into law that created state-based repercussions for when social media platforms are censored based on viewpoint discrimination. However, Big Tech’s lobbyists sued to stop the new laws, leading to a multi-year legal battle that transcended all levels of courts before ultimately appearing before the United States Supreme Court.
Oral Arguments for both laws were held in February 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 the tech lobbyists had been claiming for years.
These SCOTUS rulings ultimately leave room for the Texas and Florida laws, and NJ AB 180, to eventually set an important precedent for online free speech, and the First Amendment protections that Americans deserve.
Assembly Bill 180 will also continue a state-based and national debate on the role of Big Tech in our civic discourse. This will ensure New Jerseyans know that their public debate is sacrosanct. 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.
_________
Nothing in this Research & Commentary is intended to influence the passage of legislation, and it does not necessarily represent the views of The Heartland Institute. For further information on this and other topics, visit the Budget & Tax News website, The Heartland Institute’s website, and PolicyBot, Heartland’s free online research database.
The Heartland Institute 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 Heartland’s Government Relations department, at [email protected] or 312/377-4000.
Samantha Fillmore is a State Government Relations Manager for The Heartland Institute.
