Establishes provisions relating to civil liability for publishing or distributing material harmful to minors on the internet
If enacted, HB 1993 would amend Missouri's Chapter 537, introducing a new section specifically focused on internet content regulation and liability for damages. This law could see a substantial shift in how online platforms manage content that could potentially harm minors, leading to enhanced compliance requirements. The implications of this bill extend to not only individual websites but also various internet-based services that may inadvertently distribute harmful material, effectively imposing a greater burden on content providers to screen and verify their offerings.
House Bill 1993 aims to establish civil liability for entities that publish or distribute materials deemed harmful to minors on the internet. The bill introduces stringent requirements for commercial entities, mandating that they implement reasonable age verification methods before allowing access to such material. Failure to comply with these provisions can lead to significant financial penalties, including a minimum award of $20,000 for each violation. The legislation is positioned as a protective measure for minors, addressing the growing concern over their exposure to inappropriate content online.
The sentiment surrounding HB 1993 is somewhat divisive. Proponents advocate for stronger protections for minors against harmful internet content, framing the bill as an essential legislative step toward safeguarding children. However, critics argue that the measures could lead to over-regulation and stifle free expression on the internet. Concerns have been raised regarding the broad definition of what constitutes harmful material and how it may impact legitimate content and freedom of speech.
Notable points of contention include the specific definitions of 'material harmful to minors' and the effectiveness of age verification systems. Critics highlight the potential for misuse of the law, suggesting that the requirements might lead to excessive censorship or the blocking of educational or artistic content that may fall under the bill's umbrella. The debate reflects larger tensions between the need to protect children online and concerns regarding censorship and the operational burden placed on internet service providers and content creators.