Arizona Legislators Take Massive Step to Fight Back Against Big Tech Censorship

The state of Arizona is pondering a remarkable bill regarding political censorship on social media sites, according to Just The News. Conservatives have long complained about such censorship on social media sites and they cite the de-platforming of major political figures like 45th President Donald Trump as evidence of this. Now, a bill has been proposed that would fine social media platforms for suspending or banning candidates for political office.

The bill, Senate Bill 1106, was authored by state Senator Wendy Rogers (R). It would fine a social media platform $25,000 daily if it hinders a candidate’s speech by suspension, banning, shadowbanning, or manipulated reduction of exposure. The penalty for such hindrance increased to $250,000 a day if said candidate is running for a statewide office.

Senator Rogers explained her bill as seeking “to reinforce the First Amendment, especially for political speech [w]hich I have personal experience in telling you it is a higher bar than regular speech.” The bill, which would also include a provision protecting accounts that identified themselves as journalistic, was approved by the state House Commerce Committee by a vote of 6-4.

Democrats Get Bad News With New Reforms Promised by Republican Governor

The bill has attracted criticism from some for being anti-business. Amy Bos, the director of NetChoice non-profit organization that “works to make the Internet safe for free enterprise and free expression“, ridiculed the bill by saying “[i]t’s means violate the well-established First Amendment right to editorial discretion. The act compels online businesses to host content they’d otherwise remove or obstruct highly-inappropriate content that might not be appropriate for all viewers.”

Such utterances by Amy Bos go against the spirit of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which notes that “[t]he Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.” How can one have “true diversity of political discourse” if political candidates are banned from using said sites or for that matter “intellectual activity” if journalists are likewise prevented from publishing their content on said platforms.

While it is true that the 1st Amendment concerns governmental interference with speech and prohibits laws on that basis, private censorship stands in marked violation of the spirit of free discourse. No honest person can sincerely argue that political discourse is akin to online sites allowing pornography to be shown to minors and ought to be censored as such. The degree of “inappropriate content” when it comes to political discourse should be determined by the consumer rather than the site. Such at least is the intent of Section 230 (even if its enforcement is contrary to that noble sentiment).

In any event, the confluence of government and the private sector in the stifling of political speech and newsworthy content has certainly proved the necessity to reinforce the protections around journalism and political speech.