Awesome new proposal from Senators Cruz and Wyden today:
A feature of the GRANITE Act proposal and the Wyoming GRANITE Act bill was a two-part structure – a “shield” like the SPEECH Act, and a “sword” which was a private right of action for any attempts or threatened attempts to breach the shield.
Of course, in America we already have our own domestic shield from direct censorship – the First Amendment itself. Policing violations of the U.S. government in cases of indirect censorship or government pressure can be a little complicated. This is where JAWBONE comes in.
JAWBONE, the idea for which was conceived by Sen. Cruz’s office at around the same time GRANITE was being cooked up, answers one question that observers of the U.S. federal response to censorship have had for awhile: is a private right of action specifically designed to shield Americans from online censorship something which influential people in the Capitol think is a good idea?
At least vis-a-vis the U.S. government, the answer to that question appears to be a resounding “yes” – and on a bipartisan basis, too. JAWBONE is supported by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Protect The 1st Foundation, Center for Democracy and Technology, Institute for Free Speech, Public Knowledge, Americans for Tax Reform, Advancing American Freedom, Independent Women’s Voice, and the Internet Accountability Project.
The First Amendment shields Americans from direct online censorship from our own government. JAWBONE would shield them from indirect online censorship from our own government.
If Senators Cruz and Wyden can get JAWBONE enacted, that will leave one more major censorship vector to close: foreign governments.
My conclusions about Senator Schmitt’s bill are based on public statements describing the bill as a logical extension of the SPEECH Act, which suggests that, at minimum, any such bill would seek to block the enforceability of foreign censorship judgments in American courts (something that may be the case if you choose to draw inferences from existing First Amendment jurisprudence, but in relation to which there is no precedent directly on-point. Additionally, foreign censors are trying to order around Americans by telling us that their foreign edicts apply on U.S. soil – so a statutory shield would be incredibly helpful).
Now we wait to see if Senator Schmitt will introduce a foreign censorship shield bill, and, if so, what provisions it will contain!