Proposed NC bill would ban 'censorship' by social media sites

Proposed NC bill would ban 'censorship' by social media sites

A draft bill circulating among Senate Republicans would allow lawsuits against social media platforms for "censoring" political or religious speech.

https://www.spreaker.com/user/9922149/proposed-nc-bill-would-ban-censorship

Conservatives have claimed for some time that their voices are unfairly downgraded or banned by social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter, which did ban former President Donald Trump's account after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

The "Stop Social Media Censorship Act," sponsored by Sen. Ted Alexander, R-Gaston, would allow users to sue social media sites in state court for censoring or hiding political or religious speech. Users could sue for up to $75,000 in statutory damages, plus any punitive or compensatory damages awarded.

It would also forbid social media sites from censoring or banning users for "hate speech."

The Bill Starts out with this info before it goes into details:

AN ACT TO ENACT THE NORTH CAROLINA STOP SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP ACT TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN SOCIAL MEDIA WEB SITES FROM CENSORING CERTAIN POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS SPEECH.

Whereas, the federal Communications Decency Act was created to protect decent speech, not deceptive trade practices; and Whereas, repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act at the federal level is unnecessary because it already includes a state law exemption and the Stop Social Media Censorship Act was crafted to fall squarely in the state law exemption of Section 230 to cure abuses of Section 230 to protect the consumers of this State; and Whereas, this State has a compelling interest in holding certain social media websites to higher standards for having substantially created a digital public square through fraud, false advertising, and deceptive trade practices; and Whereas, major social media websites have engaged in the greatest bait and switch of all times by marketing themselves as free, fair, and open to all ideas to induce subscribers only to then prove otherwise at great expense to consumers and election integrity; and Whereas, breach of contract, false advertising, bad faith, unfair dealing, fraudulent inducement, and deceptive trade practices are not protected forms of speech for purpose of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or the Constitution of this State; and Whereas, the major social media websites have already reached critical mass and they did it through fraud, false advertising, and deceptive trade practices at great expense to the health, safety, and welfare of consumers of this State, while making it difficult for others to compete with them; and Whereas, the State has an interest in helping its citizens enjoy their free exercise rights in certain semi-public forums commonly used for religious and political speech, regardless of which political party or religious organization they ascribe to; and Whereas, this State is generally opposed to online censorship unless the content is injurious to children or promotes human trafficking – only then does this State accept limited censorship.

The bill hasn't been filed yet, a draft of the bill, which states that social media sites could block content or users only for "calls for immediate acts of violence," obscene or "filthy" material, encouraging criminal conduct, fake content, copyright infringement, bullying, excessive violence or spam.

Section 230(d)(3) of the Federal Communications Act says, "No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section."

That federal law protects “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material. It establishes a shield against civil liability for any provider or user for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

The First Amendment bans the government from censoring political or religious speech. It does not, however, disallow private individuals or corporations from banning anything they want.

#MagaFirstNews a Part of https://GoRightNews.com
with Peter Boykin join him on
Telegram https://t.me/RealPeterBoykin
GAB https://gab.com/peterboykin

Podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/show/goright-with-peter-boykin

Check Out More Videos on
GAB: https://tv.gab.com/channel/peterboykin
Rumble: https://rumble.com/GoRightNews
Bitchute: https://bitchute.com/channel/gorightnews
Odysee: https://odysee.com/@PeterBoykin:2
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbJq2br_Uw-tr3e4CIf5TAQ

Check Out Our Page on
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/GoRightNewsOfficial

Please Show Your Support by helping to cover the costs for these podcasts,
Donate directly at
Paypal: https://paypal.me/magafirstnews
BuyMeACoffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/PeterBoykin
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/peterboykin

#GoRightNews