Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB895

Wisconsin 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/4/24
• Refer: 1/4/24
• Failed: 4/15/24

Caption

Creating a civil cause of action against the owner or operator of a social media website that restricts religious or political speech. (FE)

Impact

This legislation would create a legal framework within which users could challenge the actions of social media companies. The law defines key terms, such as 'deplatforming' and 'shadow banning,' while also delineating user rights regarding access to their content after taking these actions. If passed, AB895 would dramatically transform the relationship between social media platforms and their users, potentially increasing the number of legal disputes over content moderation practices. Furthermore, it emphasizes accountability for these companies, as they would be required to inform users of any actions taken against their accounts or posts.

Summary

Assembly Bill 895 establishes a civil cause of action against the owners or operators of social media websites that restrict religious or political speech from users. This proposal is significant in the discourse about online freedoms and the responsibilities of social media platforms, particularly as it applies to larger platforms with over 150 million users. The bill allows users to seek damages if their religious or political speech is deleted or censored without appropriate notification from the platform, making it a response to perceived bias against certain viewpoints in online discourse.

Contention

Debate surrounding AB895 centers on the implications for freedom of speech versus the need for social media regulation. Advocates argue that the bill protects users from unjust censorship and promotes freedom of expression, while critics worry it may lead to unintended consequences, such as hindering the ability of platforms to enforce community standards effectively. Additionally, there are concerns about the broader impact on how social media companies operate, potentially prompting them to retreat from active moderation in fear of litigation. The bill's exceptions for content that promotes violence or is obscene introduce a layer of complexity regarding enforcement and interpretation.