The Senate Commerce Committee voted 18-10 to advance legislation giving Americans a legal avenue to challenge federal officials accused of coercing broadcasters, technology companies or other private entities into suppressing First Amendment-protected speech.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A bipartisan Senate effort to create new legal consequences for federal officials who pressure private companies to suppress constitutionally protected speech cleared a key committee Wednesday, advancing after lawmakers cited disputes involving both the Trump and Biden administrations.
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved the legislation 18-10 on Sept. 16. The measure, known as the Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression Act, or JAWBONE Act, would establish a federal cause of action allowing people affected by government coercion of private speech intermediaries to seek relief in court.
The bill still requires approval by the full Senate and House before it could become law. No date has been announced for Senate floor consideration.
At issue is a practice commonly described as “jawboning,” in which government officials allegedly use regulatory authority, investigations, threats or other forms of pressure to influence decisions by private companies about speech they host, distribute or broadcast.
The legislation’s findings acknowledge that government communications with private companies are not inherently coercive. Federal agencies can legitimately communicate with websites, broadcasters and other businesses for law enforcement purposes or engage in ordinary discussions with the private sector. The proposal instead seeks to provide a remedy when government action crosses into coercion intended to suppress protected expression.
Republicans and Democrats supporting the measure pointed to different administrations when describing why they believe the legislation is necessary.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., the committee’s top Democrat, cited the dispute involving ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr.
Cantwell said that if the proposed law had been in place last year, Kimmel could have pursued legal action after Carr pressured station owners to stop carrying his program following remarks Kimmel made about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which supports the bipartisan legislation, similarly said it would have created safeguards preventing Carr “from threatening the broadcast licenses of television stations that continued to air Jimmy Kimmel’s show after he made remarks the White House did not like.”
The dispute surrounding Kimmel became a prominent example in the broader debate over government influence on private media companies.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized ABC over programming and called for action involving its broadcast licenses. In April, Carr ordered accelerated license reviews for eight ABC stations owned by Disney, despite those licenses not previously being scheduled for consideration until October 2028. Reuters reported that the FCC had not undertaken such an early review in more than five decades.
The review was ordered one day after Trump called for ABC to fire Kimmel.
Trump this month also called for the FCC to rebuke or punish NBC journalist Kristen Welker after she reported that Trump’s record of success in endorsing political candidates had been mixed.
The debate has also produced criticism from within Trump’s own party.
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, sharply criticized Carr last year after the FCC chairman’s statements involving Kimmel and broadcasters.
Cruz called the remarks “dangerous as hell.”
“I got to say that’s right out of ‘Goodfellas’,” Cruz said, referring to the Martin Scorsese film. “That’s right out of a Mafioso coming into a bar going, ‘Nice bar you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it.’”
Cruz nevertheless emphasized different examples when explaining his support for the JAWBONE Act, pointing to conduct under former President Joe Biden.
He said the Biden administration attempted to pressure large technology companies into “canceling Americans who spoke out against vaccine mandates and election fraud.”
Cruz and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., introduced the JAWBONE Act in June as a bipartisan response to concerns that administrations of either party could attempt to accomplish indirectly through private companies what the government could not constitutionally order directly.
The bill applies to several categories of private entities involved in distributing information, including broadcasters, interactive computer services and providers of speech-enabling artificial intelligence systems.
Its language says those companies have independent editorial rights while also recognizing that their central role in distributing information can make them targets for government pressure intended to affect what Americans can say or access.
Under the proposed law, a person who alleges that a federal agency or employee engaged in prohibited jawboning could bring a civil action even when the government’s effort to have speech suppressed ultimately failed.
Supporters argue that existing First Amendment litigation can be difficult because officials may leave government before a case concludes, administrations can change and communications between agencies and private companies can be difficult for plaintiffs to obtain.
The legislation would allow monetary damages in qualifying cases and is intended to create a more direct legal remedy for people claiming that government officials attempted to use private intermediaries to restrict their protected speech.
The proposal has attracted backing from organizations with differing political and ideological perspectives.
The ACLU endorsed the bill and said government agencies have repeatedly used their authority to pressure private organizations into censoring themselves.
“We don’t think any small group should have authority over what happens with AI” — wait that’s from prior unrelated article. Need remove. Let’s correct.
Original article
Comments