A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/new-bill-takes-aim-government-pressure-silence-lawful-online-speech

by hn_acker • 1 month ago

299 104 1 month ago

panny2• 1 month ago

But everyone here loves jawboning and agrees the government should suppress speech. Well, at least when their team is in office. Whether it's ICE Block or IVM Block, you can probably find a reason why you too think speech freedom is just a little too free for your tastes.

cookingrobot• 1 month ago

What are those things? Googling didn’t help.

belorn• 1 month ago

The later is the case that then supreme court ruled on in 2024 (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno).

I suspect it goes to explain why this new bill is bipartisan. That case failed because the plaintiffs did not have a legal standing to sue.

"In a dissent that detailed emails, press conferences, and past decisions, Justice Alito painted the "jawboning" as "blatantly unconstitutional".

Wednesday's ruling, he wrote, "permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think"."

Regardless if one agree with them, it do demonstrate that conservative side think that there is a risk that governments will attempt to persuade platforms to moderate content, and that this is a risk. This new bill seem to make it much easier to give people a legal standing to sue, thus allowing the supreme court to give a different verdict if a similar situation happen again.

jMyles• 1 month ago

Obviously censorship of both the location of ICE agents (or other terrorist threats bearing state decals) and censorship of discourse over the science of respiratory pathogens has been awful; I don't recall anyone here on HN cheerleading either of them.

In fact, it seems to me that you've chosen precisely two areas between which a palpable bridge exists, contradicting the two-party zeitgeist.

HN, for all its many flaws, is one of the few places where important evidence such as the diamond princess dataset and the cochrane review of evidence of mask (in)efficacy received robust discussion and, seemingly, resulted in changed minds.

Likewise, I don't recall anyone but a few trolls suggesting that Apple's assistance to ICE in covering its tracks was a legitimate exercise of state (to the extent that pressure was a factor) or corporate (to the extent that it created market esteem) pressure.

panny2• 1 month ago

HN, for all its many flaws, is one of the few places where important evidence such as the diamond princess dataset and the cochrane review of evidence of mask (in)efficacy received robust discussion and, seemingly, resulted in changed minds.

I get the feeling we're not discussing this submission on HN

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48605139

I get the feeling it's going to be flagged/dead in short order.

edit: Subarashi! How elegant. HN has flagged it less than 30 minutes after I made this comment. So much for the bastion of enlightenment and free speech known as HN, right?

JoshTriplett2• 1 month ago

But everyone here loves jawboning and agrees the government should suppress speech.

That sure is quite an assumption you're making.

Governments should have zero control over speech and zero ability to impose consequences on speech. Individuals and most groups should have absolute freedom of association, which is precisely what they're exercising when choosing not to associate with some speech and some speakers

bell-cot• 1 month ago

Governments should have zero control over speech and zero ability to impose consequences on speech...

Perhaps you are an "absolute" free speech absolutist, but does that include:

- Swatting?

- Doxxing?

- Yelling "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theater?

- Liable and Slander?

- Spreading nude pictures (real or faked) or personal medical information without consent?

- Threatening (relatively) defenseless individuals with physical harm?

- Impersonation?

- Blackmail?

idiotsecant• 1 month ago

Phew, they better be careful what they ask for. The current regime might find themselves hoisted upon their own petard.

jazz9k• 1 month ago

Huh? We have more free speech than ever online at this moment. The last regime colluded with the major social media companies to censor people they didn't like and it's also recently come to light that they attempted to get the Joe Rogan/Spotify deal nuked, all based on censoring speech they don't like.

The liberal government of the UK is moving toward complete online censorship with their bill to prevent children from going on social media sites. The reality is that they will now be able to identify and will arrest people for posting opinions they don't like. This has already been happening for the last couple of years and will now be even easier. This is exactly how it works in China.

If Democrats come into power again in the US, this will soon be coming to a computer near you.

This should be the #1 story on HN, but the tech community has been strangely silent on the subject....

I just wish the people claiming to be champions of free speech and rights will just admit that this all goes out the window when it applies to speech and people you don't like. It would make everything much easier.

platevoltage3• 1 month ago

I'll give you that Liberals are also antagonistic towards online free speech, but pretending that we have more free speech online right now than ever before is the most insane thing I've ever heard. Just because you can post nazi shit on Twitter now does not mean we have more online freedom.

jmull4• 1 month ago

You are kidding yourself if you think this is a liberal vs conservative issue.

The current FCC chairman threatens the broadcast license and to block deals of networks who air shows the president doesn’t like. These threats appear to have lead directly to the cancellation of shows — a clear violation of the first amendment, though there have been no consequences so far.

If you really care about this issue, get out of your information bubble.

Whichever party is in power, Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, have tried to suppress speech they don’t like when they get in power. If we pretend this is a partisan issue we can’t stop them.

jrflowers• 1 month ago

https://www.newsweek.com/pro-palestinian-protest-states-coll...

foco_tubi2• 1 month ago

Collusion is the wrong word. Coercion is more appropriate.

I just wish the people claiming to be champions of free speech and rights will just admit that this all goes out the window when it applies to speech and people you don't like

Try using the word "cis-gender" on Twitter and let us know how that goes.

burningChrome• 1 month ago

Do people not read the article, or do they just read the clickbait title and comment?

Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort?

Or the fact the EFF is actually in support of the bill:

EFF applauds Senators Cruz and Wyden for taking this critical issue seriously, and we look forward to working with Congress on this bipartisan bill as it moves through the process. We hope it lands on the right balance to provide additional protections for everyday users around freedom of expression.

chmod7754• 1 month ago

Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort?

And thank god for that. I hope this is indicative of a larger trend in the opposite direction.

I'm not in the US, but here too free speech and other democratic values have been something the far right could contrast themselves on against the center and left. It pisses me off to no end that the issues I've been harping on about for years are now most effectively championed by a group that is otherwise ideologically opposed to me. I'm not mad at the right for this, I'm mad at the center and left who handed it to them.

convolvatron2• 1 month ago

what a strange take for a non-US person. one 'side' takes a couple whacks at free speech. the other side calls them on it, gets in power, and then starts taking a chainsaw to it, and you find reason to be angry that's its side A making a fuss now? and not that side B went rogue?

carlosjobim• 1 month ago

ideologically opposed to me

Are you sure they are? Probably most people in your country would label you as far right for championing free speech, no other issues considered. Probably you are doing the same for others.

plagiarist3• 1 month ago

What? The far right is against free speech. They only ever screech about free speech when someone is experiencing social consequences.

They whine about actual Nazi rhetoric earning bans on private companies' platforms, then turn around and open investigations on people criticizing their masked police force. Attending protests gets you added to the terrorist watchlist.

platevoltage3• 1 month ago

Who are you referring to? At the time I'm replying to this, there are 4 other top-level comments on this thread, and the only one even implying that it was a partisan effort was someone mentioning the "current regime" in a joking sort of way. Everyone knows that Liberals also want to limit free speech. That's not new.

shevy-java3• 1 month ago

Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort?

And why should that matter? Your assumption here is that these two parties are different to one another AND not corrupt. I don't see why these two assumptions should be true intrinsically. Can you explain why, if a Democrat does xyz, one should not be wary anymore?

As for "bi-partisan effort": look at public hearings recently. On simple questions such as was the storm of the capitol an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government, all the clown members of the current clown administration dodged to answer that. Any more questions necessary here?

Or the fact the EFF is actually in support of the bill

And why would that matter either? The EFF is not a holy shield that has taken away people's ability to think for themselves. I don't need any moral compass given by EFF or anyone else to know where and when and how corruption works.

JohnMakin• 1 month ago

Cynically, if I was looking at this as if both parties are protecting their interests - they might be realizing that this behavior going forward is going to be harmful to their donors, and thus themselves. State mandated TV/speech is not necessarily great for business, depending on the tastes and whims of whoever is in power at the moment.

throwaway85825• 1 month ago

Wydens bullied a man to death.

https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/lawsuit-claims-wydens-famil...

intended2• 1 month ago

I am conflicted. On the one hand getting governments to wade into what is fair speech is absolutely a slippery slope. Yet, platform firms are not correctly incenvitived arbiters of speech either.

Square this circle:

1) Big Social Media firms have to make decisions on speech.

2) The ideals of free speech that everyone espouses are from an era where publishing and control of publishing was nascent.

3) As businesses, it is their job to ensure they take care of their shareholders, and thus this means driving engagement.

4) As humans, we respond and engage with certain stimului more actively than others.

5) As of 2026, moderation is still value driven. Private entities must now what is fair speech and moderate according to their values.

6) Platforms, following the incentives that are set out for them, create environments that are as addictive as possible for its users. This is what their job is.

You can make small enclaves for long form content. However, the majority of the voting population is drugged to the gills with enrapturing content.

This is not a recipie for a healthy information economy, this is the opium wars being waged by our own business structures on our own people - a druggie information economy.

Giving governments more power is ... oof... a bad idea. We need more genuine efforts to ensure a healthier content environment that works for society.

Do note, that while US based commenters are concerned, the situation is even worse in other nations, given that Authoritarianism is on an upswing. Figuring this out is not a trivial philosophical issue.

jmull4• 1 month ago

This bill is about enhancing the protections of lawful free-speech under the US constitution.

Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here.

Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, libel and slander, speech calling for violence, and fraudulent advertising are some typical examples of speech not protected by the first amendment.

It would be tricky, but we could reasonably categorize engagement algorithms with certain properties as harmful to people and not subject to first amendment protections. This would be consumer protection, like laws against fraudulent advertising and other misleading claims.

rpdillon3• 1 month ago

For what it's worth, yelling fire in a crowded theater is First Amendment protected speech.

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/14/setting-1st-amendment-my...

I'm just stating facts.

https://www.popehat.com/p/the-first-amendment-isnt-absolute

peyton2• 1 month ago

Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here.

That is not a general principle. Consider the following: it is now illegal to say the word “election” because it would harm the President.

intended2• 1 month ago

we could reasonably categorize engagement algorithms with certain properties as harmful to people and not subject to first amendment protections

This is a hope, however I have not seen any effort that wasn't scuppered, until recently.

The social media bans are a lurch in that direction.

I could separate them out into different strands:

1) Society saying that the engagement algorithms is not what we want to have in our lives or the lives of our children

2) Problematic technical implementations, or benign technical implementations that invade privacy and support government gaining more powers over speech.

Any regulation shaping algorithms is perilously close to shaping speech. Now if you say algorithms are speech or editorial decisions that platforms have their own freedom to choose, then you essentially strip them of their protections.

This would force a form of moderation that would have most people up in arms on HN.

I fully admit, I am being rough in my cuts; the point I am attempting to make is that any decision to decide what constitutes protected and unprotected speech is going to be government interference.

It may even be likely that the firms such as Meta or Tik Tok would end up as untenable under such rules.

SpicyLemonZest4• 1 month ago

The exceptions you're listing are mostly real but much more narrow than you're thinking. Only threats of imminent violence are excepted; it's completely protected by the First Amendment to say things like "it's getting to a point where we might have to be violent" or "I would commit violence if suchandsuch were to happen to me", even if other people reasonably find those statements to be stressful and alarming. Similarly, while defamation as such is illegal, it's not defamatory to say something like "John is a stupid fool who can't be trusted", even if I know many people think he's smart and trustworthy and even if his reputation is ruined by my statement.

There's simply no general principle that speech which harms people can be restricted.

hypersoar• 1 month ago

The case which originated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" analogy, Schenk v. US, was overturned more than half a century ago. And in that case, the proverbial fire-yellers were socialists distributing pamphlets.

cwmoore• 1 month ago

No need to square the circle when it’s already a hexagon. Commies can’t stand hexagons.

rayiner2• 1 month ago

Big Social Media firms have to make decisions on speech.

The fiction underlying their section 230 liability shield is that they don’t have to make those decisions. They’re just “dumb pipes” for user generated content. The Supreme Court punted on this issue in Twitter v. Taamneh but it’s going to get resolved eventually.

SpicyLemonZest4• 1 month ago

This is a common but backwards misconception. Section 230 was written to ensure that online platforms could make decisions on speech and did not have to just be dumb pipes. Congress was worried that a "dumb pipe only" regulatory regime was taking shape through court decisions, which would have forced platforms to choose between letting users post obscene rants and accepting liability for anything defamatory users might say.

econ• 1 month ago

Well put. There are probably a few 100 other edge cases worth examination but you got it down to a digestible list.

One trick i always apply to products is to ask yourself what kind of people you are looking to create. Who are the resource and what do you want to change them into? Anything we say is manipulation so appealing to ignorance isn't an answer.

It seems we like people to be constructive and feel empowered to do useful things. We would want them to have access to useful educational information to guide them on their path to enlightenment. We want everyone to contribute to the wellbeing of humanity and the environment which starts by convincing them they can. Then we also don't want to force people into such a narrow scope that they can't express themselves freely anymore.

It would probably be funny to have a personalized LLM review your content contribution before you hit the submit button and present you with a harsh bullet list enummerating everything that is wrong with your contribution. Then if your writings meet certain criteria the right audience should be exposed to it.

We could make it even more spectaculaire by merging the contribution with similar ones under the guidance of its authors. In stead of 100 very similar recipes for apple pie have an AI assisted battle royale that arrives at one that describes the variations (and lists its 100 sources)

You might even identify and recruit some pâtissiers to write walls of text denouncing and/or praising some variations. Currants, sultanas or raisins? The world needs to know.

Cider9986• 1 month ago

Another good bill for privacy that is actually good: https://www.surveillanceaccountability.com/

needSomeCoffee• 1 month ago

JAWBONE == Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression. Max Kudos. Ron and Ted owe a staffer (or staffers) a few drinks.

staticshock• 1 month ago

My favorite of these has always been the USA PATRIOT Act, or the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act". And that one predates LLMs, so… sheesh.

smalltorch2• 1 month ago

I always think of this when someone mentions the patriot act.

The single senator who opposed it.

http://www.archipelago.org/vol6-2/feingold.htm

nilsherzig• 1 month ago

I like MAGIC CARPET "Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies"

dotancohen2• 1 month ago

For a short time I maintained a GUI for abcde called abcdefghi - A Better CD Encoder For Gnome... and I neither remember what the H I stood for nor could I find any reference for it last time I looked. I think maybe two or three other people ever used it, I had already moved to KDE by late 2001.

LocalH• 1 month ago

I think it should be illegal to make the name of any bill an acronym

jmyeet• 1 month ago

So the EFF and ACLU seem to support this bill. I'm skeptical given one of the sponsors is Ted Cruz who famously said [1]:

After earlier stating he first ran for Congress in 2012 “with the stated intention of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate,”

Texas has laws that government contractors must promise not to boycott the state of Israel [2]. 35+ US states have similar laws [3]. This on its face seems like a government restriction on speech, squarely violating the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, who otherwise love to pay lip service to the First Amendment, go out of their way to avoid anti-BDS challenges [4]. Courts have generally split hairs here saying anti-BDS impacts commerce and is speec-neutral. That's a complete cop out.

So do I think that Ted Cruz really cares about free speech? Not for a second. I suspect that if this passes, it'll only ever be applied in cases where governments officials attack conservative misinformation (eg stolen elections, anti-vaxxer anything). Any speech contradicting US foreign policy will be labelled as domestic terrorism so First Amendment freedoms don't seem to apply (I suspect).

US tech platforms already have incredible conservative bias. Meta's policy chief, Jordana Cutler (who worked in Benjamin Netanyahu's office), boasts about taking down pro-Palestinian content [5]. Twitter is a Nazi shithole [6]. And worse [7]. The whole manosphere, which is an alt-right entry point, flourishes on every platform.

So, no, I have no confidence in anything Ted Cruz supports.

[1] https://www.christianpost.com/news/ted-cruz-cites-genesis-12...

[2] https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/anti-israel-policies-are-ant...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws

[4] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-declines-t...

[5] https://theintercept.com/2024/10/21/instagram-israel-palesti...

[6] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-twitter-elon-mus...

[7] https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/07/27/twitter-...

ngai_aku• 1 month ago

At EFF, we’re continuing to fight back on behalf of those censored by government coercion. One recent example: we represent the creator of ICEBlock, an app that allows the public to report immigration enforcement activity in their communities.…
EFF applauds Senators Cruz and Wyden for taking this critical issue seriously

Credit where it’s due, but I doubt that ICEBlock was the first thing Ted Cruz wanted to benefit from this bill

shevy-java3• 1 month ago

On the bright side: it means the current dictator clowns in charge, are afraid of people having their own opinion.

On the not so bright side: this is literally KGB textbook 101. Yuri explained this in the 1980s already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9apDnRRSOCk

Ultimtately, though, while the billionaires running the show are ruthless, their puppets in the current administration are really so incompetent that they will literally ruin everything, including their own corrupt ambitions.

petilon4• 1 month ago

I think "government pressure" needs to be defined. If vaccination misinformation is spreading like wildfire on social media, and measles and other deadly diseases are getting out of control, and the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation, is that "government pressure" and should it be illegal?

Now you can argue that the right way to counter misinformation is by countering it with legit information, and that's certainly a valid argument.

But that idealistic approach quickly runs into a wall. As Bill Gates said on Oprah's show, "We were a bit naive: we thought the internet, with the availability of information, would make us all a lot more factual. The fact that people would seek out—kind of a niche of misinformation—we were a bit naive."

So yes, people seek out misinformation, because of some inherent belief that there is a vast conspiracy going on that they aren't aware of, and the more conspiratorial some news sounds, the more likely they are to believe it. So you can't necessarily fight misinformation with legit information, unfortunately. As a result, a public health crisis is likely if social media companies do nothing to control the spread of misinformation.

JumpCrisscross4• 1 month ago

and the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation, is that "government pressure" and should it be illegal?

Honestly, yeah. The government can counterprogram. But it shouldn’t be allowed to pressure anyone to take that content down (or limit its visibility).

Half the reason this anti-vax nonsense gained staying power is as a backlash to such government interventions.

The proper solution to misinformation is standard liability. If you say measles vaccines are useless and cause autism, neither of which is true, and someone’s kid dies of measles after listening to you, you cut them a cheque. (But don’t go to jail.)

petilon4• 1 month ago

There is an important difference between government persuasion and government coercion. The government should not be allowed to threaten platforms with punishment unless they remove lawful speech. But public-health officials should be allowed to tell platforms, "This claim is false, it is contributing to real-world harm, and we urge you to reduce its reach."

Just like you and I have a right to free speech, so does the government. The government can urge, warn, criticize, request, and share public-health information.

tencentshill• 1 month ago

the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation

There's always an implied or else. Stop harming the public, because the government is obligated to stop harms to the public and if they have to step in, it won't be favorable to your company.

amanaplanacanal2• 1 month ago

Honestly I never thought there was an implied or else, until the FCC started threatening pulling TV licenses. My understanding of the last administration was they were contacting platforms to say "hey, we found some postings that appear to be against your terms of service". I will agree that was a bad look, though.

8note2• 1 month ago

or else in this case is that people die

why would the government need some other stick?

mc32• 1 month ago

I wonder if the EFF had something specific to say when various PACs and a former president tried getting Spotify to take Joe Rogan off the air for his Covid opinions?

Benlovescnn• 1 month ago

You have a source for that??

It is not that i think all right wing hosts are liars,they love to play the victim, but all I see as a source is "Joe Rogan says...". Quoting yourself is not a source.

hn_acker2• 1 month ago

"Government coercion" are important keywords used by EFF here.

triceratops• 1 month ago

This act wouldn't apply to PACs or former presidents.

SpicyLemonZest4• 1 month ago

This is a new allegation Joe Rogan made offhand in a podcast two days ago, and he said while making it that he can't tell us which PACs or which presidents were involved. What specifics could the EFF offer in the absence of any meaningful details about what happened?

QuadmasterXLII• 1 month ago

A PAC talking to Spotify is obviously protected speech. At least try to look like you have principles.

po1nt• 1 month ago

Remember fact checking, snopes and stuff? Yeah, maybe a bit too late.

seattle_spring2• 1 month ago

A good reminder in the article about something a lot of folks here tend to forget:

Finally, contrary to what many in Congress have been saying, social media platforms and other internet intermediaries have their own First Amendment rights to decide how they moderate users’ speech. They are not “state actors” and do not have an obligation under the First Amendment to allow all user speech on their platforms.

Private platforms do not have an obligation, legal, moral, or otherwise, to host or boost your harmful opinions and mis/disinformation campaigns.

fc417fc8023• 1 month ago

They ought to be regulated as common carriers above a certain size IMO justified by network effects.

Which is too say I agree with you that they don't currently have a legal obligation but I think we should change that.

seattle_spring2• 1 month ago

Completely disagree, given algorithms artificially boost content. The comparison to being an "online town square" is inapt, and I think a lot of people pushing that particular narrative actually know it too.

_heimdall• 1 month ago

I'm surprised to see Ted Cruz co-sponsoring this bill given Trump's proclivity to pressure TV networks into silencing and/or firing hosts.

Anamon• 1 month ago

Cruz was also an outspoken critic of the FCC pressuring/threatening late night shows.

A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

Related Stories