Rep. Jeff Coleman (R-Grain Valley) introduced House Bill 482 last week, which would ban popular social media companies from limiting political or religious content.
The House General Laws Committee discussed the bill this week, according to the Washington Examiner, and Coleman told members that HB 482 provides Missouri residents with a cause of action to sue companies such as Facebook and Twitter for breach of contract.
But Chesterfield attorney Ron Eisenberg said that as it stands now the bill is unconstitutional.
“HB 482 is preempted by the Communications Decency Act and violates the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution,” Eisenberg told the St. Louis Record. “HB 482 also violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article I, Section 8 of the Missouri Constitution, and HB 482 is compelled speech as it forces speech by social media platforms.”
Coleman did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
“HB 482 contains an oddly drafted prevailing-party attorneys’ fee provision in which a prevailing party may seek costs and attorney fees but it does not say that the court must or may award such costs and fees,” Eisenberg said.
If passed, the Stop Social Media Censorship Act would allow users who have been censored to seek $75,000 in statutory damages except in instances that the offending speech involved porn, fraudulent impersonation, or violence, according to media reports.
“Even without statutory damages of at least $75,000, it would still allow for actual damages," Eisenberg said. "People could still claim to have lost profits as a result of the removal of their posts and the bill would still be forcing Facebook and Twitter to publish speeches that those platforms don’t like and don’t wish to promote."
Eisenberg sees $75,000 in statutory damages as highly unusual.
“Generally, statutory damages provisions provide a maximum amount of statutory damages but as written a plaintiff could seek unlimited statutory damages and if so, I don’t see how such damages would be statutory,” he said.
The Missouri Times reported that similar bills are progressing in other states, such as South Carolina and North Dakota, but Google’s Richard Brownlee opposes the legislation being considered and approved state-by-state.
“It literally borders on the impossible,” Brownlee said in the Missouri Times. “This is a very complicated issue with a lot of far-reaching implications.”
Other Missouri representatives are presenting their own versions of the bill.
Rep. Hardy Billington (R-Grain Valley) filed HB 932 which is different from HB 482 in that it would protect social media sites from liability by classifying them as publishers.
Rep. Curtis Trent (R-Springfield) filed HB 783 which would mandate prohibited content as a separate document from terms of service.