Skip to content

Bills · 2021-2022 Regular Session

AB 591

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

Relating to: creating a civil cause of action against the owner or operator of a social media Internet site that restricts religious or political speech. (FE)

Attorney general Court — Procedure Damage personal injury Data processing Data processing — Privacy issues Deaf and hearing impaired District attorney Political parties Religion and society

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Assembly, not reached
  3. Passes Senate, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. Law, not reached

Unfamiliar terms? Glossary

What this bill does

Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau

This bill creates a civil cause of action against the owner or operator of a social

media Internet site that is available to the public and that has more than 150 million

users, if the owner or operator of the site intentionally does any of the following:

1. Deletes or censors, or uses an algorithm to delete, censor, disfavor, or

censure, the religious speech or political speech of a person that is a resident of this

state, as defined in the bill, and that subscribes to or has an account with the social

media Internet site (a user). The bill defines “religious speech" as “speech relating

to a set of unproven answers, truth claims, faith-based assumptions, and naked

assertions that attempt to explain such greater questions as how the world was

created, what constitutes right and wrong actions by individuals, and what happens

after death.” The bill defines “political speech" as “speech relating to the state,

government, body politic, or public administration as it relates to governmental

policy or policy making,” including speech by the government or a candidate for office

and any discussion of social issues.

2. Fails to notify a user that the user's religious speech or political speech has

been deleted, censored, disfavored, or censured, or that the user has been

deplatformed. The bill defines “deplatforming” as deleting or banning a user from

the social media Internet site for more than 60 days.

3. Fails to allow a user who has been deplatformed to access or retrieve all of

the user's information, content, material, and data for at least 60 days after being

deplatformed.

4. Fails to publish the standards, including detailed definitions, that it uses or

has used for determining how to delete, censor, disfavor, and censure speech on the

social media Internet site and how to deplatform and shadow ban users on the social

media Internet site. The bill defines “shadow banning” as limiting or eliminating the

exposure of a user, or content posted by a user, to other users of the social media

Internet site.

5. Applies censorship, deplatforming, and shadow banning standards in a

manner that is not consistent among its users on the social media Internet site.

6. Fails to inform each user about any changes to the social media Internet site's

user rules, terms, and agreements.

7. Makes changes to its user rules, terms, and agreements more than once

every 180 days.

8. Fails to provide a mechanism for a user to request the number of other users

who were provided or shown the user's content or posts and provide that number to

the user upon request.

The bill provides that it is not a defense to such an action that an owner or

operator of the social media Internet site considered a user's religious speech or

political speech to be related to content that is offensive on the basis of the owner's

or operator's personal moral code.

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: Allen (R) , Armstrong (R) , Brandtjen (R) , Cabral-Guevara (R) , Edming (R) , Horlacher (R) , Knodl (R) , Kuglitsch (R) , Sortwell (R)

5 cosponsors

Darling (R) , Felzkowski (R) , Roth (R) , Stroebel (R) , Wichgers (R)

Votes

Assembly: Report passage recommended by Committee on Judiciary, Ayes 5, Noes 3

Passed 5–3 Feb 1, 2022 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Full history

  1. Sep 30, 2021 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Sortwell, Cabral-Guevara, Allen, Armstrong, Brandtjen, Edming, Horlacher, Knodl and Kuglitsch; cosponsored by Senators Roth, Stroebel, Felzkowski and Darling

  2. Sep 30, 2021 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Judiciary

  3. Oct 1, 2021 · Assembly

    Representative Wichgers added as a coauthor

  4. Oct 6, 2021 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. Oct 27, 2021 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. Oct 27, 2021 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  7. Feb 1, 2022 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by Committee on Judiciary, Ayes 5, Noes 3

  8. Feb 1, 2022 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  9. Mar 15, 2022 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1