President Trump couldn’t force America’s private social media companies to operate the way he wanted. So Iowa’s Republican legislators want the state attorney general and town councils to give it a try.
Senate File 402, a bill sponsored by 20 Iowa Senate Republicans, launches an ideological attack against the same firms Iowa Govs. Reynolds and Branstad courted with tax credits and other incentives.
This bill concludes that social media businesses are censoring certain ideologies, depriving Iowans of some kind of right never actually asserted in the Constitution. Our First Amendment clearly establishes individuals’ free expressions. It’s not so clear on compelling others to provide the platform.
The bill co-sponsored by Sens. Mark Lofgren and Chris Cournoyer doesn’t say which ideologies these platforms should support. But their fellow co-sponsor Sen. Jason Schultz knows for sure. They’re the ones he agrees with.
“These platforms have become weaponized by progressive ideology and moved to the point where they will leave anything inappropriate up on the progressive side of the nation’s ideological spectrum but seem to jump immediately like a guard dog against anything that moves toward the conservative side,” Schultz said.
The bill doesn’t call out Amazon, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Instead it provides descriptions of them: An online marketplace serving at least 75 million subscribers, a social network of 20 million, or a company with a trove of at least 100 million videos.
Forbids blocking of content
It would be OK for these companies to restrict Iowans’ access to things the legislature deems “obscene” or with “excessively violent content.”
But it forbids, “limiting, blocking, or otherwise restricting any content on the company’s internet site if the content constitutes constitutionally protected speech.”
It puts the Iowa attorney general in charge of investigating every complaint from an Iowan claiming censorship.
Aggrieved Iowans are asked to provide evidence, specifically a photograph, presumably of the post or meme that Facebook didn’t share sufficiently, or took down.
The attorney general has seven days to respond to every Iowan’s complaint, and 30 days to issue a report. If founded, the state files suit.
This bill specifies the attorney general must appeal all losses all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court.
If a court anywhere determines one of these private companies failed to share “constitutionally protected speech,” the state would yank all the incentives, collect as much of the old ones as possible, and block the business from any more for the next 20 years.
It doesn’t stop there.
Town councils must investigate
If any court upholds a censorship complaint, Iowa town councils also must investigate and revoke local incentives.
If not, the state of Iowa will go after Iowa towns, too. This bill allows the state to withhold 10 percent of state sales, fuel and other tax appropriations to the town.
“The governmental entity’s portion of each appropriation in the fiscal year of the court’s finding of an intentional violation shall be reduced by 10 percent.”
And the legislature would dock 10 percent of the town’s own property taxes.
“The amount of the political subdivision’s budget certified under this chapter and the amount of taxes certified back to the county auditor by the department of management shall be reduced by 10 percent.”
The penalties go up 5 percent every year a town doesn’t comply.
State could sue towns for non-compliance
If the state feels a town council still won’t heel, it requires the attorney general to sue that town “every year” until it complies.
So why are Iowa Republicans taking up this cause so vigorously? No need to guess. The legislation spells it out.
“Near the end of his presidency, President Donald J. Trump attempted to force Congress to prevent any future harm caused by the continued ability of companies to exploit and abuse the Communications Decency Act by vetoing the National Defense Authorization Act, but Congress decided to override President Trump’s veto instead of preventing the harm and abuse from continuing by repealing or amending the Communications Decency Act.”
Wait a minute. Can state legislators in Des Moines override the will of an elected Congress?
The legislation addresses that, too.
“The general assembly does not have the authority to enact any law that is inconsistent with the Communications Decency Act. The general assembly does have the ability to ensure that the state and its political subdivisions do not give any taxpayer money, tax incentives, or any other benefit to the companies causing harm to our society by exploiting and abusing the Communications Decency Act.”
But doesn’t Iowa state law prohibit the legislature from imposing mandates on local governments without funding? Yes, but not this one. “Political subdivisions are required to comply with any state mandate included in the bill.”
Records will be secret
Will Iowans know who is filing these complaints? Nyet. “All records provided to the office of the attorney general pursuant to this section shall be kept confidential and are not subject to chapter 22."
Iowa’s Chapter 22 holds the open record provisions the legislature requires of town councils and every other government, but not itself.
For the past 10 years, Iowa’s Department of Economic Development lavished incentives on these digital publishers. Facebook alone got $30 million in incentives, and the city of Altoona rebated property taxes through 2033 on a series of data servers.
To business, this bill says Iowa legislators are deal breakers. They add after-the-contract conditions on incentives. This year, it’s about ideological perceptions. What’ll it be next?
Worst of all, this bill concedes that Republican-minded private business owners could never create social media platforms that would rival those targeted in this bill.
Never mind that Rupert Murdoch’s family is doing fine with Fox News and the Wall Street Journal’s conservative broadcast, print and online platforms.
This bill looks to Iowa state government and town councils, not any future Murdochs in the marketplace, to provide one online.