SB 383
OKLAHOMA CITY – Despite being condemned by the ACLU of Oklahoma this past week, Senate Bill 383, a measure to eliminate selective censorship of opinion on social media and to ensure free speech, is scheduled to move to the Senate floor after moving out of the Senate Judiciary Committee late last month.
State Sen. Rob Standridge, R-Norman, author of the bill, told Southwest Ledger in a January interview that he became concerned about Big Tech overreach when he said he heard from approximately 100 constituents – all primarily conservative – who had been banned in one way or another by social media websites from using platforms or group pages because of their opinions.
“If (social media outlets) are going to censor, they need to do it equally,” Standridge said at the time.
After SB 383 was approved, Standridge reiterated, “There have been cases where social media posts discriminate against conservative views, and social media platforms censor or delete posts supporting those views. Nonviolent political posts are being censored just for having differing opinions. Citizens should be able to have a chance at civil discourse.”
The advancement of SB 383 got the attention of ACLU-OK, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization whose purpose is to “protect those rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” Despite its pro free-speech tradition, the organization expressed deep concern and apprehension about Standridge’s bill.
Nicole McAfee, Director of Policy and Advocacy for ACLU-OK, said, “As dedicated advocates of the free speech rights of all Oklahomans, the ACLU of Oklahoma recognizes the power of speech to have profound consequences. These consequences can be harmful and traumatizing.
“The world witnessed the harms of online hate speech play out during the attempted insurrection at the federal Capitol complex on January 6. SB 383 and similar efforts should not be granted further hearings at the Oklahoma Legislature. To do so is to align our state with the people who attempted to overthrow the government in the name of white supremacy.”
While Standridge’s bill says nothing about white supremacy or violence, he did say that under SB 383, users in the state could sue any owner or operator of a social media website who purposely censors a user’s political or religious speech.
Additionally, the measure would apply to deleted posts or the use of algorithms to suppress such speech. The websites would be immune from liability if any censored post called for immediate acts of violence or enticed criminal conduct. It also would exempt posts involved in bullying minors, false impersonation or those from an inauthentic source. The measure would not apply to individual users who censor the speech of other users.
Standridge’s bill also provides that users above the age 18 could seek damages of a minimum of $75,000 per intentional deletion or censoring of that user’s speech, along with actual and punitive damages if aggravating factors are present. The prevailing party could also be awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees.
McAfee and the ACLU, however, claim that this bill is beyond the abilities of the state Legislature.
“SB 383 is an attempted exercise of power the Oklahoma Legislature does not have. It is pre-empted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which prohibits any state law that would hold platforms liable for the speech of their users,” McAfee said.
Standridge, however, disagreed, saying that his reading of Section 230, specifically Subsection E, brings him to believe that “states have the ability to pass laws that can be used in cases of social media abuses to our citizens,” he said. “The worst-case scenario, since this is uncharted territory, would be that courts would not grant a hearing or might recommend a change in the law in order for citizens who are censored to have civil recourse.
“Selective censoring of opinion on social media should not be prevalent in a country where freedom of speech is a fundamental right,” Standridge said. “While it is important to keep the internet safe by censoring violent or other criminal content, censoring posts solely for a differing political opinion is wrong. This measure will protect free speech.”
“Legislation like SB 383, pushed by Chris Sevier, has been introduced across the country, and it is an embarrassment that this bill would not only make an agenda but continue to advance through the legislative process,” McAfee said. SB 383 is “an overreach of government power and a shame to our state.”
Standridge responded by saying, “With untold thousands of Oklahomans having been censored for their political or religious views, seemingly only on one side of the philosophical spectrum, I would think the ACLU would be at the front of the line demanding these monopolistic companies not silence the free speech of fellow Americans.”