Digital Free Speech Protection Act

Liberty Justice
,
1

Digital Free Speech Protection Act

Objective: To protect free speech on digital platforms and prevent the censorship of individuals who challenge government or corporate narratives.

Policy Proposal:

  • Implement a Free Speech Safeguard for all digital platforms, prohibiting the censorship of users based on political views, government criticism, or controversial topics (such as corruption or conspiracy theories), unless the content violates clear legal standards (e.g., hate speech, incitement to violence).

  • Create a federal Digital Free Speech Review Board to oversee cases where users claim their content has been unfairly censored by social media companies. The board will be responsible for reviewing the case and ordering the restoration of content if it’s determined that the censorship was politically motivated.

  • Require social media companies to provide Transparency Reports that detail their moderation decisions, including specific reasons for content removal, bans, or censorship, which would be made available to the public.

  • Offer legal protections to individuals who expose corruption or political issues through social media, providing them with the right to sue platforms that unjustly censor their content.

  • Prohibit shadow-banning or content throttling of users based on political affiliations or beliefs, ensuring a level playing field for all.

-Moderation transparency
If a user’s account or content is moderated in some way by the entity that owns the service or individuals acting on behalf of that entity, such as a ban, suspension, or being muted/removed, a clear and direct reason must be given that includes the exact violation(s) of the user, such as a sentence, image, or relevant portion of a video with as much specificity as possible.

3 Likes
2

Great points!

I would add another:

Moderation transparency

If a user’s account or content is moderated in some way by the entity that owns the service or individuals acting on behalf of that entity, such as a ban, suspension, or being muted/removed, a clear and direct reason must be given that includes the exact violation(s) of the user, such as a sentence, image, or relevant portion of a video with as much specificity as possible.

I think the Founding Fathers never could’ve imagined how a private company could have so much control over speech. In my view, I think the 1st amendment should essentially be modified or added to in law to expand its effect to cover online services as well. People should have the same freedom of speech online as they do offline (including so called “hate speech”). There is absolutely a place for moderation, and there needs to be care taken to allow for it, but in general, people should be free to say as they wish on social media, in multiplayer games, public forums, and etc.

I don’t personally think we’d need a “Free Speech Review Board” and “Transparency Reports”. Just expanding our free speech rights to the internet would be enough and give people the right to sue big companies into the ground for trying to censor it.

Just saw this today as just another cherry-on-top of the thousands of cherries already on the top of reasons that online censorship is a bad thing and is getting out of control:

3

That is honestly a really really great idea I didn’t think about that, I do think that if online was added to the fist amendment that would be HUGE!!!

Also love the point you added. I am going to add it in: thanks so much.

1 Like