Iowa Senate committee advances bill to penalize social media companies that censor speech

(The Center Square) – In a 10-6 vote, the Commerce Committee of the Iowa Senate advanced a bill that would prohibit any political entity in the state from entering into contracts or providing tax incentives to companies that restrict viewing constitutionally protected content online.

According to the text of SF 402: “A company shall not intentionally affect the ability of a citizen of this state to view, comment, or otherwise interact with a United States citizen’s content on the company’s internet site by limiting, blocking, or otherwise restricting any content on the company’s internet site if the content constitutes constitutionally protected speech.

The committee also adopted an amendment introduced by Sen. Jake Chapman, R-Adel. Amendment 1056 would allow companies the ability to restrict the ability of Iowans to view, comment or “otherwise interact” with a U.S. citizen’s content on the company’s internet site if the content contains content generated by bots, or intellectual property.

SF 402 also allows for restrictions on obscene and excessively violent content.

Obscene content is described within the bill’s text to refer to content, “which the average person, taking the material as a whole and applying contemporary community standards with respect to what is suitable material for minors, would find appeals to the prurient interest and is patently offensive; and the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, scientific, political, or artistic value.”

The advancement of the bill and the adoption of the amendment both took a party line vote.

Sen. Liz Mathis, D-Hiawatha, expressed concerns about the impact she predicts it would have on Iowa’s economy.

“Well, Sen. Chapman, this business-busting bill has turned Iowa into a four-letter word, and it effectively puts a ‘closed for business’ sign on Iowa,” Mathis said.

She also predicted the bill would increase governmental regulations as the Iowa attorney general’s office would enforce the bill.

“Just where did you hide the Republicans? The Republican Party used to pride itself on supporting business – big and small,” Mathis added. “You used to be about limited government. Instead this bill would grow government and government reach. It would increase regulations, red tape, tie up everything in the courts and – wait for it – make lawyers rich. Not to mention increase Attorney General Tom Miller’s budget substantially, substantially. And I’ll let you explain that to the Iowa taxpayer.”

She added that no one is forced to use social media to exercise their first amendment rights.

“We are all free to take our comments to the steps of the Capitol or to the real town square if we please,” Mathis said.

Chapman responded the Supreme Court called social media the modern public square, possibly referring to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s delivery of the ruling in Packingham v. North Carolina. He also spoke of an incident involving WHO Radio host Jeff Angelo using the terms “election fraud” on Facebook, which WHO13 Des Moines covered in a special report.

“So we’ve heard the economic argument,” Chapman added. “Hey, we’re going to lose business. They’re going to leave the state. Are we going to go to an auction block and auction away our rights? How much? Is it a billion? $5 billion? How much are you willing to sell your freedom, your liberties for? How much is it? Maybe there’s a number, but for me, it’s – I’m not willing to compromise on it. And sadly, the reality is, if they can censor the president of the United States of America, they can censor any one of us. And they’re doing it.”

Chapman said the tax breaks the state gives social media companies are the predominant financial matter for the bill.

Iowa Office of the Attorney General Communications Director Lynn Hicks told The Center Square in a texted statement that the office was waiting to see amendments before it would make a statement.

Disclaimer: This content is distributed by The Center Square