New Bill Allows Americans to Sue Officials for Coercing Social Media Platforms
L'essentiel
- A new bipartisan bill, the JAWBONE Act, would allow Americans to sue government officials for illegally coercing social media, AI, or broadcasting companies to remove posts, regardless of platform action.
- It also mandates transparency in government communications with these companies.
Résumé généré par IA
Pourquoi c'est important
A new bipartisan bill, the JAWBONE Act, has been introduced by Senators Ted Cruz and Ron Wyden. It aims to allow individuals to sue government officials for illegally coercing social media, AI, or broadcasting companies to remove posts. The bill also introduces new transparency requirements for government communications with these companies.
Under a new bipartisan bill, Americans could sue for damages if a government official illegally tries to coerce a social media, AI, or broadcasting company to remove their post â regardless of whether the platform actually does it.
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the JAWBONE Act on Thursday, which, in addition to letting individuals sue for these kinds of damages, would create new transparency requirements for government communications with social media, AI, and broadcast companies.
That could empower someone like Jimmy Kimmel to sue Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, who threatened TV stationsâ broadcast licenses after the comedian made a joke Carr disliked in the aftermath of Charlie Kirkâs killing. (Carr has denied the comments were threats.) It could also empower lesser-known social media users whose posts about medical misinformation or criticism of Kirk were removed or targeted, if they believe it was due to government coercion.
Cruz first teased the bill in the aftermath of Carrâs comments about Kimmel, which the senator characterized as âright out of Goodfellas.â But heâs said heâs worked on the bill since before that incident, and has repeatedly criticized Biden administration officialsâ messages to social media companies about medical misinformation during the pandemic, which became the subject of a Supreme Court case. (The Supreme Court determined plaintiffs had no grounds to bring the lawsuit, and its ruling found a lack of clear evidence that platforms were moderating based on government coercion.)
The bipartisan sponsorship and a pool of supporters that includes the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), and Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, could lend credence to the bill. Cruz and Wydenâs statements each point fingers at the opposite partyâs administration for allegedly engaging in the actions they seek to crack down on. âThe Biden administration weaponized the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to pressure Big Tech into âcancelingâ Americans who spoke out against vaccine mandates and election fraud,â Cruz charged. âThe most blatant example is Trump threatening cable companies because he doesnât like their late-night shows, but jawboning isnât partisan, and it isnât new,â Wyden said. If passed, the bill could make such incidents the subject of costly legal battles, on top of bitter political fights.
Ă surveiller
Perspective IA â des possibilitĂ©s, pas des certitudes
The JAWBONE Act will face significant debate and potential amendments before a vote.
Probable · En quelques mois
If passed, the bill could lead to a surge in lawsuits against government officials related to content moderation.
Possible · Moyen terme
Questions ouvertes
- What specific criteria will be used to define 'illegal coercion'?
- How will the burden of proof be handled in such lawsuits?
- What are the potential financial implications for government officials and agencies?
- Will this bill impact existing regulations or legal precedents regarding free speech and platform moderation?






