Statement of Principles on News Censorship

Prior to task force meetings, ALEC posts these legislative member-submitted draft model policies to our website. The draft model policies are then discussed, debated, and voted on by ALEC task force members. Policies that receive final approval by legislators on the ALEC Board of Directors become official ALEC model policy. Draft model policies that fail to become official ALEC model policy are removed from the website.

Policy Status

  • Type: Statement of Principle
  • Status: Draft
  • Date Introduced: December 4, 2024

Issues

  • Communications and Technology
  • Free Speech

    • Task Forces

  • Communications and Technology

    • Tags

  • SNPS 2024

    • Summary

    For at least three decades, innovations in our nation's communications infrastructure -- driven primarily by private, free market investment -- have ushered in a transformation in the media and journalism industry. For much of the 20th century, a small number of "legacy," gatekeeper media platforms in print, radio, and broadcast television tightly controlled both the distribution of media to consumers, as well as which perspectives were represented on air. New and alternative news platforms are thriving in this modern media environment, breaking the mold of the 20th century incumbents. According to a Pew Research Center study, 86% of U.S. adults say they often or sometimes get news from a smartphone, computer, or tablet. Instead of picking up a physical newspaper each morning or tuning into the nightly news, most Americans increasingly turn to new and emerging cable news channels, independent digitally native media outlets, podcasts, social media, email newsletters, news aggregator apps, and more to stay informed on current events. We now have more options than ever to make our voices heard, seek multiple perspectives on daily news or politics, and make up our own minds about the trustworthiness of individual platforms. Whether in print, over the airwaves, or online, government agencies should harness the full potential of today's media offerings to communicate official notices on the platforms where their constituents actually frequent—not put their thumbs on the scale exclusively in favor of "mainstream" outlets. A troubling trend has emerged in which “media monitoring organizations” analyze news outlets for the accuracy of their reporting and then blacklist or otherwise exclude certain publications from advertising.  This accuracy is often determined by adherence to official government positions. For example, news outlets that reported on the COVID-19 lab leak theory, questioned the effectiveness of masks or the COVID-19 vaccine, or the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop were deemed purveyors of disinformation and demonetized, despite the fact that the truth varied from the official government position on those issues.  The House Judiciary Committee and the House Small Business Committee have both released reports on how the federal government funded, developed, and promoted entities that aim to demonetize news and information outlets because of their lawful speech.
    Draft

    Statement of Principles on News Censorship

    Principles

    1. Determinations of misinformation, disinformation and malinformation are inherently political and subjective criteria. Any organization claiming to engage in “fact-checking” or identifying misinformation, disinformation or malinformation is using subjective criteria to censor speech. What constitutes misinformation, disinformation or malinformation is an inherently political determination that chills free speech and Freedom of the Press. Government has a First Amendment obligation not to engage in such censorship or otherwise support organizations engaged in such activities.
    2. Government should not pick winners and losers based on ideology or alleged bias. When state agencies develop constituent outreach campaigns (such as a public service announcement raising awareness), or work with professional marketers or advertisers, they should base ad placement decisions on an outlet’s objective, quantitative metrics, such as audience size, viewership, and demographic information. They should not discriminate against outlets based on subjective, content-based criteria, adherence to perceived journalistic standards or determinations of misinformation, disinformation or malinformation.
    3. Government should not be in the business of “fact-checking” news outlets or “protecting the public” from outlets that spread alleged misinformation, or provide material support to entities that do the same. Government should prioritize contracting decisions with advertising and marketing agencies that do not place advertisements using political criteria, and eschew relationships with third party services that engage in fact checking or determinations of subjective, content-based criteria, adherence to perceived journalistic standards or determinations of misinformation, disinformation or malinformation.
    4. The antidote to misinformation, disinformation or malinformation is more speech, not censorship. The U.S. Supreme Court has long abided by the Counterspeech Doctrine – a principle that the solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship or “enforced silence.” The private sector is already leading on this issue. Many social media platforms in the private sector have already integrated “Community Notes” features that allow other users to add additional context or critique posts, voted on by the platform’s users.