Alaska State Senator Introduces Bill To Ban Fact Checking And Content Moderation. For Freedom

from the shakes-head dept

Let me introduce you to Alaska state Senator Lori Reinbold, who insists in her profile that she believes “in smaller government, and an economy based on free market principles.” She also says that she takes her oath to defend the Constitution “seriously and will fight to protect our inalienable rights.” And apparently, the way she does that is by outlawing fact checking. Senator Reinbold recently introduced a bill in the Alaska Senate that is such a batshit crazy attack on free speech as to be almost a parody. Now, I know, I know that it’s become fashionable among Trumpist legislators to pretend that “free speech” means forcing private companies to host speech that violates their own policies (which seems pretty anti-free market and anti-private property).

Bills of this nature have already been deemed unconstitutional in both Florida and Texas. At least the bills in both those places pretended to try to address the 1st Amendment issues by limiting the reach of their bills. Reinbold’s bill, SB 214, the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, doesn’t even make the slightest attempts to hide how much of an attack on the 1st Amendment it is. The key bit of nonsense:

Civil liability for censorship of speech by a social media platform. (a) Except as provided in (g) of this section, the owner or operator of a social media platform may not intentionally fact check, delete, or use an algorithm to disfavor, shadow ban, or otherwise censor the religious or political speech of a platform user.

So, again, all of this is protected under the 1st Amendment. If you’re using my property to speak, I can ask you to leave and take it down. That used to be a kind of fundamental tenet that Republicans claimed they supported as a core aspect of a “free market principle” like private property. But, beyond the usual drivel pretending that you can compel private companies to host speech that violates their policies, this goes even further in saying that such websites cannot fact check. Nothing quite says you support free speech like telling companies they can’t speak at all.

I guess I might need to spell this out for people like Senator Reinbold: fact checking is speech. It’s fundamental speech, protected by the 1st Amendment. The thing you pledged to protect and uphold and promised to fight for.

Of course, perhaps this shouldn’t be a surprise coming from Reinbold, who appears to be the unfortunately typical kind of confidently ridiculous populist politicians who have been rising to prominence of late. She’s so extreme in her viewpoints that she was kicked out of the Republican caucus, and stripped of her committee assignments not once, but twice. She recently got some attention for being banned from Alaska Airlines for refusing to wear a mask. Because of that she was unable to get to the state Capitol for key votes. She was also once banned from the state Capitol for not following some fairly basic COVID safety rules.

So yeah.

And, yes, if you’re wondering why she might be so dang angry at social media sites for daring to (checks notes once again to make sure…) “fact checking,” perhaps it’s because she has a history of, let’s say, posting less than factual information.

Reinbold’s Facebook page on Friday contained many posts with Covid-19 misinformation, including advice to take hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin if infected with the virus. Her page also includes strong expressions of her opposition to mask and vaccine mandates.

Alaska: please, I beg of you, stop electing idiots.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Alaska State Senator Introduces Bill To Ban Fact Checking And Content Moderation. For Freedom”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
84 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

How dare you point out I am crazy!

Nothing says ‘reality itself is enough to disproves my claims’ quite like trying to make fact checking illegal.

or use an algorithm to disfavor, shadow ban, or otherwise censor the religious or political speech of a platform user.

Ah yes, all that ‘love thy neighbor’ and ‘reasonable regulations are a good idea’ commentary that social media is taking down, they truly need to be stopped from being able to control their own property in order to prevent them from taking down such speech since I’m sure that just like everyone else making that claim that is the speech the totally-sane and not at all wildly hypocritical senator is talking about.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re:

This may be hard for you to understand, but fact checking is someone giving their opinion on whether something is true or not to the best of their knowledge and available facts – and opinions are speech which is constitutionally protected.

That you think this is some kind of “gotcha” is just your ignorance on display.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:3

It seems you just can’t stop yourself from proving again and again how wrong you are even in the face of facts as proven by:
1. Your posting history here.
2. Anyone can look up the etymology for public house and see that you are wrong.

Let’s just look at what Historic UK tells us about public houses:

Alehouses, inns and taverns collectively became known as public houses and then simply as pubs around the reign of King Henry VII. A little later, in 1552, an Act was passed that required innkeepers to have a licence in order to run a pub.
– Source: https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/The-Great-British-Pub/

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Almost There

You are almost there. Your source mentions the 1552 act but gives no link or reference to future acts.

Do a deeper dive and see what the law actually required of a Public Houses. You can find it on this site. I posted it in the other thread.

Your post also defeats your pervious arguments about Public Houses only being for travelers.

“17,000 alehouses, 2,000 inns and 400 taverns. Do some math. At some 10 rooms required to get a license do you really think England needed almost 200,000 rooms for travelers in the 16th century? In the 16th century that is almost enough rooms for 10% of its population.

You really messed up confusing 16th century public houses which were government mandated rent controlled housing, which even in 2022 is still considered “public housing” by HUD (I could give two shits less what you think the literal definition is), with a modern pub.

When called out on it, you doubled, nay tripled, nay quadrupled, nay quintupled down!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Pot, kettle

gives no link or reference

None of your posts in this thread have any links at all.

In the below examples, you make claims but don’t source them. Is it because you know they are false, or because you honestly don’t know how citations work?

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Do a deeper dive and see what the law actually required of a Public Houses. You can find it on this site. I posted it in the other thread.

Why should I? It’s clearly established what a public house is, the only one arguing about is you even in the face of cited facts.

Your post also defeats your pervious arguments about Public Houses only being for travelers.

I have never argued that. Regardless, a public house isn’t a public housing.

“17,000 alehouses, 2,000 inns and 400 taverns. Do some math. At some 10 rooms required to get a license do you really think England needed almost 200,000 rooms for travelers in the 16th century? In the 16th century that is almost enough rooms for 10% of its population.

You just can’t stop yourself from showing what a jackass you are. Alehouses/Pubs doesn’t have rooms to rent because then they become Inns/Taverns, which means there were at most 24000 rooms to rent.

You really messed up confusing 16th century public houses which were government mandated rent controlled housing, which even in 2022 is still considered “public housing” by HUD (I could give two shits less what you think the literal definition is), with a modern pub.

Uhm, at no point in any of the laws regarding public houses and public housing are the terms used interchangeably, the only one doing that is you as the quote above proves. That you can’t admit that you where wrong only furthers the impression that nothing you say has any relevance whatsoever.

And that you accuse me for messing up is some funny shit, anyone can peruse your posting history and see how consistently wrong you have been. One would think you where delusional, but we all know the truth – you aren’t man enough to admit you can be wrong.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

You really messed up confusing 16th century public houses which were government mandated rent controlled housing, which even in 2022 is still considered “public housing” by HUD (I could give two shits less what you think the literal definition is), with a modern pub.

Uh, no. No one said that public houses were equivalent to modern pubs, and the only one saying that public houses and public housing are the same thing is you.

When called out on it, you doubled, nay tripled, nay quadrupled, nay quintupled down!

Projection, thy name is Chozen.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: opinion

Well Facebook just admitted in the last few months in a brief to the court that “fact checks” are just opinion so they will have a hard time arguing otherwise from now on.

This… actually highlights how ridiculously stupid the bill is, because opinions are absolutely protected speech. Why do you seem to think otherwise?

Oh wait. Don’t tell me. I already know.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
mADneSs (profile) says:

Re: Reinbold

Man, please don’t lump me in with the majority of Reinbold’s constituents — I don’t live in her district. That said, Reinbold’ definitely one of the more crazy-pants state senators we’ve got (the other is Crystal Kennedy).

I guess the only thing that can be said at this point is that at least neither side has a supermajority.

Our lone congressman just kicked the bucket last Friday and I’m hoping Alyse Galvin takes another stab at it –she’s tried the last two elections and had come closer than anyone else to unseating Don Young. Now if only we can get rid of our mayor (Anchorage) and governor (Dunleavy). Oh, and Dan Sullivan, one of the two US Sens. He’s just useless. Lisa Murkowski’s the only decent one we’ve got (I don’t always agree with her, but I absolutely respect her). I just hope she can hold out against the Trumper crowd.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

The idiots those places elect reflect their voters.

Sadly, I think that in this country, especially in the rural areas, too many Republicans vote for the candidate solely because they have an R after their name and generally not for any policy reasons.

And now to add to that, wether or not the candidate is a Trump supporter is the next reason for an R to vote for an R.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
David says:

Re: Re:

Sadly, I think that in this country, especially in the rural areas, too many Republicans vote for the candidate solely because they have an R after their name and generally not for any policy reasons.

I wonder whether having “PG” there instead would rather in- or decrease your chances.

ECA says:

Re: Whats seen

The real problems are many.
1. WHO is backing idiots with over 10 times the money as the other Candidates?
2. Who gets a face on TV/RADIO most.
3. Being able to look up the past of THESE persons. Just cause they went to school dont mean they got a good grade(esp the past school systems)
4. Something seen, is Candidates SHIPPED IN, from other parts of the nation. NOT persons that have Lived in and around that STATE.
5. What is needed to be placed on a ballot to Run for Any office? Some states it costs LOTS of money.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

representatives elected reflect the voters of their state.

Do they, though?

To be an elected rep, one needs to pay fealty to the local party, raise a shitload of money, and to express enough non-scary/affirming views to one’s base to seem better than the other candidates.

This automatically knocks out anyone who isn’t corrupted and who has nuanced, well-informed opinions.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

And, yes, if you’re wondering why she might be so dang angry at social media sites for daring to (checks notes once again to make sure…) “fact checking,”...

self-fact-checking is still fact-checking! I’ll see you in the Alaskan courts!

(and don’t try to weasel your way out of this by saying it’s not a law yet. This may be Alaska, but I’m sure Texas-style justice works there too!)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Wyrm (profile) says:

Re:

Just a subsection of “my freedom to do everything I want trumps your freedom to do anything at all.”

They have repeatedly demonstrated that they have this weird notion that “freedom” means that they are allowed to do anything, up to and including murder, and whoever they don’t like has no right to do anything without their express approval. Including walking, talking and breathing.

They simply don’t believe in an equal freedom for all. Their world is a variation of “might makes right”. More exactly it’s something along the lines of “white makes right”.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: “might makes right”

Big Tech abusing 90% market shares to stifle opinions they dont agree with is “might makes right”.

Social media is a modern colonialism. Mike the rest of the people who live in silicone valley are using a technological monopoly to force their world view on every other culture in the world.

Its exactly what the White Christian colonialist empires did to everyone else during colonialism.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

silicone valley are using a technological monopoly to force their world view on every other culture in the world.

And what company has this monopoly of which you speak?

Google? Twitter? Facebook? Instagram? TikTok? Mastodon? Gab? Parler? Gettr? Truth? Reddit? YouTube? Amazon? Apple? Discord? Etc? Etc? Etc?

Please tell us what company has a monopoly such that they can control the entire world’s cultural and political discourse.

And for the slow kids like yourself, market share does not equal monopoly!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

A monopoly implies that a significant number of people have no choice in provider. As far as social media is concerned that does not apply om the Internet, except maybe in China and Russia. Finding that you have been banned from the popular sites, and you are left with the seedy ones does not come from there being a monopoly, but rather you refusing to play by the rules.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Maybe actually answer the dang question already: Who has the monopoly power? And if you give more than one answer, that means it’s not a monopoly.

Also, which market? Google, Apple, and Microsoft don’t compete with Facebook or Twitter at all because they’re in completely different markets, but Google, Apple, and Microsoft compete among each other, while Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Parker, Gab, 4chan, etc. compete among each other as well.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Big Tech abusing 90% market shares to stifle opinions they dont agree with is “might makes right”.

Consider that the audience for your opinions is so small, that it isn’t profitable.

You can always build your own, can’t you? Where you can be fact and fancy free of all us stupid libtards and our bullshit? If your views are as popular as you feel they are, it would prove to be lucrative, wouldn’t it?

Look at all of the examples – Parler, Gab, Bumble, Truth Social, Frankspeech (maybe, someday), MeWe, among others…are they so bad that you folks don’t want to fuck off over there to bitch? I don’t see the logic in supporting ‘big tech’ vis-a-vis demanding to use their platforms. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the ‘strategy’ is.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

If all social media banned the same speech, toy would have a point. They don’t, as places like 8kun, gab,truth exist.

What you keep on demanding is that government passes a law that allow you to invade, use the hecklers charter, and force your views down everybody else throat. That is not the sin of someone who supports free speech, but rather someone who thinks that they can define how society acts, just like the Taliban and Putin do.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Big Tech abusing 90% market shares to stifle opinions they dont agree with is “might makes right”.

Quick question: Why should “Big Tech” be forced by law to host speech it otherwise wouldn’t host?

the people who live in silicone valley are using a technological monopoly to force their world view on every other culture in the world

Quick question: Why isn’t it working?

Its exactly what the White Christian colonialist empires did to everyone else during colonialism.

Quick question: Why do you think they’re not still doing it, even within the United States?

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Cattress (profile) says:

Let her news stream suddenly fill with Pro Muslim stories, events and news within Muslim world, and lots of stories about the Green Party and the Dems, then tell her changing the algorithm would violate her stupid law.
And what makes this dummy think she can make an internet regulation like that which only affects folks in Alaska? Dummy.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

I grow weary of this religious belief crap.

I wish someone would remind the politicians that freedom of religion also means the rest of us can’t have it shoved down our throats.

Members of Congress “interviewing” a SCOTUS nominee screaming about how unfair it is that gays can marry when it makes religious people feel ookie & state laws overridden… Loving v Virginia why isn’t he outraged over that decision?
(I’m sure he is but hes smart enough to not be openly racist infront of cameras.)

We have SCOTUS debating abortion again.
Not because there is some real issue, but because a bunch of religious people are offended that other people were allowed that right & that upsets them.

SCOTUS allowed churches to be weekly superspreader events in the name of religious freedom, which helped the virus kill more people.

Now members of Congress are screaming how put upon these poor religious people are, with their half-hearted bullshit beliefs excusing them from everything, because they can’t stand the idea that other people have rights too.

We need a punishment for politicians who submit stupid laws like this, it is on its face unconstitutional, should never pass and is a waste of resources to perform for a small crowd of cheering dumbasses who believe that despite having all of the power they are the victims in all of this.

They want smaller government, but all they got was smaller brains.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I was thinking of Cornyn, but hes just as dim.

Also remember, I am permanently softbanned from using Twitter so I miss out on lots of cool things.

This ranks right up there with the moronic statements Republicans make about rape, upto and including the idiot in Michigan who told his daughters if they were about to be raped just lay back and enjoy it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Brains?

7

7-4 = 3

3+2 = 5

5 < 7

It is mathematically possible to want and achieve smaller government while also expanding government in areas where government needs to be involved such as defense of individual rights from private aggression.

This is why people form governments in the first place which is what those of you an the left don’t even realize.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

It is mathematically possible to want and achieve smaller government while also expanding government in areas where government needs to be involved such as defense of individual rights from private aggression.

Whose civil rights are being infringed upon, and how are they being infringed upon, by [checks notes] fact checking and content moderation on Facebook?

Please note that neither content moderation nor fact checking are censorship. Also, please remember that nobody owes you a platform or an audience at their expense.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

while also expanding government in areas where government needs to be involved such as defense of individual rights from private aggression.

It people like you who are being aggressive in demanding that you are allowed to force you views onto platforms where you are not welcome. Hint, major platforms moderate to keep the largest audience, and not to push a political viewpoint. Some newer and smaller platforms moderate to support a political viewpoint, and fail to grow an audience, which does strongly suggest that those viewpoints are not as popular as those who hold them think.

Panda Kahn (profile) says:

We are trying

This is the same person who refused to wear a mask while flying so has been banned for life from Alaska Airlines. Alaska Air is the main airline into Juneau, the capitol. So as an elected official she can no longer fly, easily, to the capitol to do her job.

She is a joke and shames her district daily. This is the kind of insane crap she spews forth daily.

She is an embarrassment.

nasch (profile) says:

Re:

Alaska Air is the main airline into Juneau, the capitol.

I believe the only airline serving Juneau. This article says “only airline with scheduled flights”, which I think means she would have to charter a private plane every time she wanted to go (or go by boat). I assume that gets expensive pretty dang fast.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2021/04/26/alaska-airlines-lora-reinbold-ban-airline-bans-lawmaker-over-masks/7380651002/

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: More speech is less speech, ah NewSpeak...

People trying to claim that fact checking is censorship is all sorts of hilarious because it betrays a monumental misunderstanding/dishonest presentation of free speech that somehow includes the ‘right’ for no-one to respond to the first speaker in a way that contradicts them.

Talk about a liar and/or lunatic’s wet dream, can’t imagine why they’d be in favor of such a warped view of free speech…

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...