A new Minnesota proposal stands poised to follow Texas and Florida in violating centuries of First Amendment protections against government compelling or blocking speech. The proposed legislation raises similar concerns to cases the Supreme Court heard last month to block Texas and Florida social media laws on constitutional grounds. These bills (HF 4400/SF 4696) put Minnesotans at risk of more government control over online speech.
Many people forget that the First Amendment not only safeguards private individuals or companies from having the government intrude on their speech – it also protects them from being compelled to speak or publish content.
The Minnesota bills would put a layer of government control over the decisions a variety of websites make about what content people see. It also would require covered services to implement a ranking system for “high” or “low” quality content, a feature many companies already use to curb dangerous content, from hate speech to foreign propaganda to spam.
Additionally, the bills would restrict social media access through daily engagement limits on new or “highly active” account holders, potentially cutting off isolated individuals who rely on these platforms as a crucial connection to the outside world.
This could threaten Minnesotans’ ability to access publicly available information online, potentially impeding their right to freely obtain and share knowledge. Information from local safety alerts to updates about natural disasters could be blocked if someone exceeded their time limit.
Additional issues are posed by the provision to prohibit contact from an account holder not already within a user’s existing extended network — unless the user initiates and welcomes the contact. While perhaps well-intended, these restrictions raise questions about how, for example, LinkedIn users could reach out to new prospective employers or employees. This would conflict with the very purpose that platform provides — career networking and recruiting.
Further, the provision raises questions about how a user could “initiate” and “welcome” contact if the default settings mandated under the bill would prohibit most interactions, including messages and requests from those beyond a user’s existing network.
These bills are politicians saying they know better what people can see and share online. That’s not just concerning, it’s unconstitutional.
While the communications medium may be new, our founders considered this issue more than 200 years ago and established protections aimed at preserving democracy. As such, the First Amendment is designed to allow people to communicate through a marketplace of ideas, and to prevent government intervention regarding what ideas people can view.
Instead of government-mandated or forced speech, our organization seeks to encourage online discourse and let users themselves choose from the different content policies based on what fits their needs. This will mean some sites will be stronger in removing dangerous content, such as cyberbullying, terrorism, or animal cruelty. Others will tend to allow all lawful speech.
To have the government instead insist on uniformity at its discretion poses a threat to all Minnesotans.
Many questions surrounding compliance and enforcement remain. How can a social media company comply with this law once a Minnesota citizen crosses state lines or someone from out of the state or country visits Minnesota? How will forced uniform speech apply if there is a political party change?
We commend Minnesota legislators for their commitment to fostering a safe digital environment for all Minnesotans, particularly younger users, and encourage them to provide educational resources to teach parents about the tools and settings they can use to enhance privacy protections on their children’s devices. Currently, four active bills in the Legislature would provide digital well-being and media literacy education for students and parents. We urge lawmakers to pursue this objective while preserving supportive online communities and access for younger users. Ultimately, it is imperative that any legislation respects and upholds their fundamental rights under the First Amendment.
The proposed heavy-handed legislation does not respect the rights guaranteed to all Americans.
Minnesota legislators and leaders must recognize the dangers of implementing such an extreme piece of legislation — with provisions that are vague, impossible to implement at scale, and would take away a vital resource for numerous state residents while violating their First Amendment rights.
HF 4400/SF 4696 creates more dangers to democracy than the issues they purport to solve for Minnesotans, and they should be rejected.
Jordan Rodell of Washington, D.C., is the state policy manager for the Computer & Communications Industry Association. CCIA is a plaintiff in the cases against Texas and Florida social media laws currently before the Supreme Court this session.
Related Articles
Real World Economics: Econ 101 explains district budgeting dilemmas
Skywatch: The lion has the hunter on the run
Your Money: Train your brain to make better money decisions
Working Strategies: Getting experience in your new career path
Real World Economics: Flu in the coop – should the Fed worry?
Leave a Reply