“Dopo
aver dovuto attendere tempi giurassici, il decreto sui vaccini è stato
ufficialmente licenziato e il nostro giudizio è netto: questo testo è
irricevibile. Il governo, invece di spiegare adeguatamente quanto e
perché le politiche vaccinali sono fondamentali, sceglie di puntare
direttamente su un approccio coercitivo che crea una pericolosa
spaccatura nel Paese”. È quanto affermano in una nota i deputati in
commissione Affari Sociali e i senatori in commissione Igiene e
Sanità del Movimento 5 Stelle. “Hanno triplicato” prosegue il M5S “il
numero dei vaccini obbligatori, portandoli a 12 – una cifra che non ha
eguali in nessun Paese europeo -: tutto questo quando in Italia non è
stata registrata una situazione di emergenza epidemiologica tale da
giustificare una decisione così estrema e senza che siano state
minimamente motivate, per tempo e diffusamente, le ragioni che li hanno
spinti a tanta drasticità. Ma c’è di più: non si parla solo di
inasprimento delle sanzioni, ma si arriva alla possibilità di segnalare i
genitori inadempienti rispetto al calendario vaccinale al tribunale per
i minori. In sostanza è prevista la possibilità di perdere la patria
potestà? Questo approccio coercitivo esaspera gli animi e rischia di
innescare un clima di ulteriore scontro tra Stato e cittadini e tra
opposte fazioni. Il governo ha deciso di forzare la mano per ragioni che
non ha avuto nemmeno la decenza di chiarire attraverso campagne
informative. Di fronte alla presenza diffusa di notizie e
interpretazioni false o parziali sulle vaccinazioni il governo, invece
di fare chiarezza e sciogliere i dubbi, ristabilendo un rapporto di
fiducia tra cittadini e istituzioni, ha scelto di agire solo a valle del
problema, imponendo l’obbligo. Di massicce politiche di contrasto alla
disinformazione sui vaccini non ne abbiamo vista nemmeno l’ombra.
Un’altra via era ed è possibile, ma il governo” proseguono “ha deciso di
non sentire ragioni e di andare dritto la sua strada senza neppure
provare a instaurare un clima di confronto e ascolto nel Paese. Quel
modello di ascolto, confronto, accompagnamento – con tanto di clausole
di salvaguardia, in caso di rischio accertato di epidemie-, per ottenere
le massime coperture vaccinali, che caratterizza l’approccio della
raccomandazione e che il MoVimento sostiene e ritiene essere il più
equilibrato”.
NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest DraftBill Title:
Relating to complaint procedures and disclosure requirements for social
media platforms and to the censorship of users' expressions by an
interactive computer service.
Controversial Texas anti-censorship social media bill nears passage
Nihal Krishan
·2 min read
Texas
state lawmakers convened Thursday to consider a controversial bill that
would reduce censorship of conservatives on social media.
The
bill would make Texas the latest Republican state to go after social
media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube for alleged
anti-conservative bias and censorship.
Florida passed a similar law last month, but a federal judge blocked it from going into effect. Meanwhile, other states, such as Utah and North Dakota, are pushing for laws to reduce censorship.
S.B.
12, which already passed the state Senate in March but not the House,
would stop social media giants with more than 100 million monthly users
from banning Texans on platforms for making political statements.
The
bill would also require social media companies to be transparent about
content moderation policies, make public reports about content they
remove, and create an appeals process for users who disagree with
content decisions.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott endorsed the bill,
saying in March it would "help prohibit social media companies from
censoring Texans based on the viewpoints they express."
Abbott said the bill would "prevent social media platforms from canceling conservative speech," a complaint lodged by many conservatives
after former President Donald Trump was banned from most major social
media platforms for his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.
Trump announced a class-action lawsuit
Wednesday against tech giants Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, along
with their respective CEOs Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, and Sundar
Pichai. Trump presented the suit as an effort to protect the First
Amendment.
The bill's author, Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes,
said the bill is needed to maintain free speech online and keep people
united through the debate of ideas.
“If current trends continue,
we can end up with a conservative internet, and liberal internet, and
where we’re Americans go there and are further driven apart from one
another, more frustrated, more angry, rather than having these common
places where we can share ideas where we can hash it out,” Hughes said
earlier this year.
The legislature passed the bill. It now heads to the desk of Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican who has publicly backed it and is expected to sign it.
The
new law, passed in the final days of the second special session called
by Abbott, would allow any Texas resident banned from Facebook, Twitter
or Google's YouTube for their political views to sue the companies. The state attorney general also would be able to sue on behalf of a user or a group of users.
It is similar to a Florida law that was blocked by a federal judge one day before it was set to take effect.
Trade groups representing the technology industry have pledged to challenge it as unconstitutional.
“By
ignoring the First Amendment, the Texas Legislature has chosen to
abandon its own conservative and constitutional values in order to put
the government in control of speech online," said Carl Szabo, vice
president and general counsel of NetChoice.
Dozens
of states are considering legislation that targets how social media
platforms regulate speech, though few have gotten this far.
Such
bills resonate with conservatives who believe their First Amendment
rights are violated when posts are labeled or removed or when they are
banned for violating the policies of social media platforms. Former
President Donald Trump's suspensions from the major platforms spurred
the new bills.
The First Amendment protects
people from censorship by the federal government, not from content
moderation decisions by private companies.
Social media companies say they don't target conservatives, only harmful speech that violates their rules.
Texas
House Democrats warned during a hearing last week that the new law
would stop social media companies from taking down harmful content.
They
offered amendments that would have allowed the removal of posts
promoting Holocaust denial, terrorism and vaccine disinformation, but
were defeated.
"When you force social media
platforms to pull their referees, the bad guys are going to throw more
fouls on the court,” said Adam Kovacevich, CEO of Chamber of Progress, a
tech industry coalition that includes Facebook and Google.
“Unfortunately this law is only going to put more hate speech, scams and
misinformation online, when most people want a safer, healthier
Internet."
Florida law came after Trump bans from Facebook, Twitter
Florida was the first state to push through legislation whenGov.
Ron DeSantis, a Trump ally, signed a bill in May that penalizes social
media companies for removing or barring the speech of politicians.
However,a federal
judge temporarily blocked the new law after NetChoice and the Computer
& Communications Industry Association – lobbying groups that
represent Facebook, Google and other tech giants – sued. DeSantis is
appealing.
Both Abbott and DeSantis are widely seen as possible GOP 2024 presidential contenderscoming
from big states with large electoral votes. Abbott is facing his first
challenging Republican primary to be re-elected governor.
“Big
Tech’s efforts to silence conservative viewpoints is un-American,
un-Texan and unacceptable and pretty soon it’s going to be against the
law in the state of Texas,” Abbott said at a news conference announcing
similar legislation in March.
Conservative
think tank The Heartland Institute recently estimated that 70 bills in
30 states are challenging “big tech censorship.”
GOP claims tech companies 'cancel' conservatives
The
Republican claim that powerful tech companies are biased against and
"cancel" conservatives is emerging as a top issue to rally the base in
the 2022 midterm elections.
The GOP is betting
it will boost voter registration, turnout and fundraising as it tries to
retake the U.S. House and Senate, political observers say.It also could help Republicans at the state level.
"It's
an issue that Republican state legislators know will energize and
agitate their base," Ari Cohn, free speech counsel for tech think tank
TechFreedom, told USA TODAY.
Trump,
who was suspended from the major social media platforms after the Jan. 6
insurrection, escalated his war with Big Tech in July when he filed
suit against Facebook, Google and Twitter and their CEOs, claiming the
companies violated his First Amendment rights.
Trump and Republicans fundraised off the lawsuit, though legal experts say it has virtually no chance of success.
The
perception that tech companies and the billionaire CEOs who run them
are biased against conservatives has been around for a long time, but
intensified as Trump made “social media abuses” a major plank of his
administration and reelection campaign.
After
he lost the presidency, Trump vilified tech companies for labeling or
removing posts that spread falsehoods about the outcome of the
presidential election.
Complaints of
ideological bias come from across the political spectrum, but it’s
difficult to prove social media platforms are targeting any one group.
Tech companies disclose little about how they decide what content is
allowed and what is not.
Researchers say they’ve found no evidence to support GOP grievances that social media companies stifle conservative voices.
If anything, they say, social media platforms amplify the voices of conservatives, shaping the worldviews of millions of voters.
But
for some conservatives, the 2020 election proved Big Tech's ideological
bias. They point to tech companies throttling the spread of a New York
Post article which made uncorroborated claims about Hunter Biden’s
business dealings, the Trump social media bans and the takedown of
Parler, a social media platform popular with the political right.
Nine
in 10 Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party
say it’s at least somewhat likely that social media platforms censor
political viewpoints they find objectionable, up slightly from 85% in
2018, according to an August report from the Pew Research Center.
The measure would also require the companies to disclose their
content moderation policies, publish regular reports about the content
they remove and create an appeals process for user content that has been
taken down.
Credit:
Getty Images/iStockphoto
The Texas Senate
early Thursday approved a bill that would prohibit social media
companies with at least 100 million monthly users from blocking,
banning, demonetizing or discriminating against a user based on their
viewpoint or their location within Texas.
Senate Bill 12, sponsored by Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes
of Mineola, was approved after 2 a.m. Thursday. The measure, which
would apply to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, among others, would also
require the companies to disclose their content moderation policies,
publish regular reports about the content they remove and create an
appeals process for user content that has been taken down.
The Texas
attorney general would be allowed to file suit against any company that
violates a provision of the bill. If upheld in court, the attorney
general could recoup "reasonable" attorney's fees and investigative
costs.
Experts have
raised doubts about the legality of the measure. Hughes acknowledged
that, if signed into law, SB 12 would almost certainly be challenged in
court. He repeatedly referred to social media platforms as common
carriers, though they have never been classified as such by law or in
the court system. Common carriers, such as phone companies and cable
providers, are private or public companies that transport goods or
people and are barred by government regulators from discriminating
against customers.
“Even though
they’re private actors, because they are common carriers, because they
chose to enter this business and offer their services, then they are
bound by certain rules,” Hughes said.
Facebook and Google, which owns YouTube, did not respond to requests for comment. In remarks before Congress last week, company executives denied removing content or blocking users based on their viewpoints.
A Twitter
spokesperson declined to comment specifically on SB 12, but said in a
statement that the platform enforces "the Twitter Rules judiciously and
impartially for everyone on our service — regardless of ideology or
political affiliation — and our policies help us to protect the
diversity and health of the public conversation."
The bill heads
to the House, where two identical bills have been filed but so far have
not moved forward in the State Affairs Committee.
Keep tabs on Texas politics and policy with our morning newsletter
During Tuesday’s debate on the bill, state Sen. Roland Gutierrez,
D-San Antonio, pointed out that while Facebook and Twitter would be
included under the measure, websites such as Parler and Gab, which are
popular among conservatives, would be left out because they have fewer
than 100 million monthly users. He proposed an amendment that would have
lowered the threshold to 25 million monthly users, but it was voted
down by a vote of 21-10.
Hughes stressed that the measure seeks to protect all viewpoints. But at a press conference earlier this month, Gov. Greg Abbott announced his support for the measure and chided social media companies for leading a “dangerous movement” to “silence conservative ideas [and] religious beliefs.”
The rhetoric
about silencing conservatives ramped up following the 2020 election,
when platforms including Facebook and Twitter removed former President
Donald Trump’s account for inciting violence during the Jan. 6 U.S.
Capitol insurrection. Prior to that, the platforms attached warnings to
posts by Trump and other conservatives who were, without evidence,
sowing doubt on the legitimacy of the election.
Republican
politicians have long targeted technology giants — accusing them of an
anti-conservative bias and for silencing free speech, even though the
actions to ban members were often in response to credible evidence that
communications were inciting violence. A February report
by researchers at New York University found that “there are no credible
studies showing that Twitter removes tweets for ideological reasons.”
In a congressional hearing
last October, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told lawmakers that
“Democrats often say that we don’t remove enough content, and
Republicans often say we remove too much.”
“The fact that
both sides criticize us doesn’t mean that we’re getting this right, but
it does mean there are real disagreements about where the limits of
online speech should be,” he said.
Twitter in
January purged more than 70,000 accounts linked to the dangerous
conspiracy theorist group QAnon for the movement’s connection to the
U.S. Capitol attack.
Hughes in 2019 filed a similar measure that won Senate approval, but it ultimately died in committee in the Texas House.
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/b46299514b9b2d78ae1ff6ce8c4a03a2/Big%20Tech%20Social%20Media%20Icons%20IS%20TT.jpg)
