This is a matter for Congress. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked, “Isn’t it better for–to keep it the way it is, for us, and Congress–to put the burden on Congress to change that, and they can consider the implications and make these predictive judgments?” 

Reason’s brief pointed out that the questions raised in this case are matters of policy, not law, and Congress, not the Supreme Court, should resolve them.

“Whether Section 230 creates good policy is not a question for this Court to decide. That question remains where it was in 1996—with Congress,” Reason’s brief says.  

Congress originally made it clear that Section 230 is part of a law intended not to limit free speech but to allow the Internet to grow “with a minimum of government regulation.” 

Recommendations and “thumbnails” are not content creation. The petitioners argued that when a site creates ‘thumbnails’ that summarize or in some way represent the content they suggest you might want to click on, they are creating content. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned that argument, saying, “…it seems to me that the language of the statute doesn’t go that far. It says that –their claim is limited, as I understand it, to the recommendations themselves.”

This is central to the question before the Supreme Court—Is recommending or suggesting content that a user might want to see the same as creating that content in terms of liability?

As we argued in our amicus brief, this is not content creation. The central value proposition most online platforms offer customers is a way to find the content they want to consume, which requires some means of making recommendations. If any form of “you might like this” is equivalent to “here is what we think about this” in terms of liability, customers will no longer be able to get recommendations. 

Section 230 explicitly excludes most digital platforms from liability. Indeed, Justice Neil Gorsuch points out that Section 230 itself says that a content provider is defined by doing more than “picking, choosing, analyzing or digesting content” (it also includes “transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content”). These things are exactly what Google does to online content for its users, as do many other platforms, and so the letter of the law in Section 230 clearly states that Google’s core service is not content creation. 

Justice Kavanaugh stated, “[petitioner’s] position, I think, would mean that the very thing that makes the website an interactive computer service also means that it loses the protection of 230. And just as a textual and structural matter, we don’t usually read a statute to, in essence, defeat itself.”

As we put it in our brief:

“…as both a provider and user of such software, [Google] falls squarely within the class protected by Section 230(c)(1). Insofar as Petitioners are seeking to hold Google liable for the consequences of having presented or organized the’ information provided by another,’ rather than for creating and publishing Google’s own information content, Section 230(c)(1) bars such liability.” 

Actively adopting or endorsing content is required to be liable. There was a lengthy conversation about whether the algorithms are “neutral” when they recommend like to like or if they could cross the line to adopt or endorse some content or be “designed to push a particular message,” as Justice Elena Kagan put it. Google’s lawyers argued that even if their algorithm did in some way push a piece of content, any harm from that content (like libel) flows from the original content, not the platform’s actions with respect to it.

In our brief, we argue that there is a line that can be crossed, but it would have to go beyond the activities defined in Section 230 as immune from liability:  

“There is, after all, a difference between a provider or user suggesting the content of others to its users or followers based on their prior history or some other predictive judgment about likely interest and a provider or user actively adopting such content as its own, such as by endorsing the truth or correctness of a particular message or statement. … YouTube is not taking a stance when it, having collected enormous amounts of data on a user’s interests, points that user to content relevant to those interests. For example, if YouTube sends a list of new cat videos to a user that has watched cat videos in the past, the separate information content of that organizational effort is no more than: ‘You seem to like cats, here is more cat content’.” 

It would be madness to make users of digital platforms liable for likes and shares. Finally, Amy Coney Justice Barrett raised the critical question of how the petitioner’s arguments would affect internet users like you and me:

“So, Section 230 protects not only providers but also users. So, I’m thinking about these recommendations. Let’s say I retweet an ISIS video. On your theory, am I aiding and abetting and does the statute protect me, or does my putting the thumbs-up on it create new content? … [B]ut the logic of your position, I think, is that retweets or likes or check this out, for users, the logic of your position would be that 230 would not protect in that situation either, correct?”

To which the petitioners responded that yes, it would.  

As we point out in our brief:

“Section 230 provides its protection not only to the ‘providers’ of interactive computer services, but to the ‘users’ of such services as well. Removing immunity from Google here would equally remove immunity for persons hosting humble chat rooms, interest- or politics-focused blogs, and even for persons who ‘like’ or repost the information content of others on their blog, their Facebook page, or their Twitter account… Petitioners’ theory is wrong and would lead to absurd results. Section 230 protects both providers and users of interactive computer services from liability for sharing, recommending, or displaying the speech of another. Any attempt to split liability regimes between the ‘providers’ and ‘users’ of interactive computer services, or to distinguish the choices made manually by individual users about what to recommend or highlight to others versus the automated incorporation of the same or comparable choices into an algorithm, would be completely divorced from the text of the statute.”  

Indeed, Justice Kavanaugh pointed out that many of the amici, including Reason Foundation, argued there would be significant damage to the digital economy if Section 230 were pulled back and people could no longer share a broad range of useful information via digital platforms.  

While we still have to wait months for the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzalez v. Google, seeing the justices’ questions hitting on these crucial points was heartening. The exchanges in oral arguments seemed to crystalize that petitioners are asking the Supreme Court to go against the explicit language of the law Congress put in place to expand liability to online platforms for shared content and further to make users of online platforms liable for any content they like or share. That would be disastrous.  

The post Reason Foundation’s amicus brief in Gonzalez v. Google answers many of the questions raised by Supreme Court justices  appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limits the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information. 

Reason Foundation submitted an amicus brief in the Gonzales v. Google case in which we argue that Section 230 is functioning as Congress intended, with great benefits to the users of the digital platforms, and that the change in interpretation of the law that plaintiffs are asking for would have devastatingly negative consequences. ​

The following segments are pulled from that amicus brief and quoted at length to convey our arguments.  

Section 230 and congressional intent 

Reason Foundation’s brief argues that the plain text of Section 230 precludes considering a digital platform to be a publisher just because they use an algorithm to organize and present the content its users provide to others who might be interested in it. Indeed, when Congress passed the Communications Decency Act, it included congressional findings and purposes that make this clear. ​Reason’s amicus brief states:  

​​​What Congress did know is that, for the Internet to grow, it had to be left alone without fear of the “litigation minefield,” … that would cripple its expansion in its infancy if the providers and users of interactive computer services could be found liable for the content created by others.  

Congress intended the government, including the judiciary, to get out of the way of the Internet’s growth. Congress explained that the goal of Section 230 is to “promote the continued development of the Internet” by, among other things, “encourag[ing] the development of technologies that maximize user control over what information is received by” those “who use the Internet and other interactive computer services.” Id. (b)(1), (3). And Congress expressed its goal of “preserv[ing] the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” 

Crucial to this intent is understanding that using algorithms to organize, present, or prioritize content created by users does not equate to publishing or to accepting liability for the content shared.  Technically, a chronological timeline of user content would still be a simple algorithm. Just because services use other algorithms to present content does not fundamentally change their legal standing under section 230: 

Like every other court to decide this issue, this Court should recognize that “[m]erely arranging and displaying others’ content to users of [YouTube] through… algorithms—even if the content is not actively sought by those users—is not enough to hold [YouTube] responsible as the ‘developer’ or ‘creator’ of that content.”  

The benefits of broad Section 230 protections 

Section 230 has provided immunity from liability for content posted by others, which has greatly leveled the playing field in terms of information available. Interactive services make it easier than ever to reach others online: 

The technological innovations made possible by Section 230 have also greatly increased the ability of the average American to spread ideas. Section 230 protections … allow interactive computer services to provide their users, rich and poor alike, with a reach that, historically, would not have been available even to the most privileged classes with access to the gatekeepers of the institutional press. Indeed, because of its ability to expand the reach of speech, Section 230 has been described as “the internet’s First Amendment—possibly better.” 

Section 230 has allowed for a proliferation of information sources that consumers have utilized for everything from general news to the details of specific products. Analysis of how consumers use the internet and digital platforms shows how crucial it is that Section 230 enables user-submitted reviews of products, something platforms can share without fear of liability. Those reviews make it easier for consumers to find a product that meets their needs. One Internet Association (IA) survey of how consumers use online reviews found:  

• 67% of respondents said they check online reviews either most of the time or every time before buying products in person or online 
• 72% said it is highly important for a business to have positive online reviews before they buy 
• 85% either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that they would be less likely to purchase products online that did not have any reviews 
• 65% responded with a seven, or above, out of 10 when asked how much they trust online reviews on a scale of one to 10

As we explain in the amicus brief: 

[R]esearch shows that “[b]uyers are looking to their peers to understand which products and services will benefit them, as peers can provide unbiased, individualized information.” Neither consumer reviews—nor the purchases they lead to—would be possible without Section 230 protections, particularly if platforms were potentially responsible for any reviews they hosted or organized in a manner useful to other shoppers.  

Beyond the importance of being able to share user reviews without liability for them, Section 230 is crucial to the flourishing of small businesses in a world where the digital side of doing business is crucial. 

After all, a “single small provider may use multiple large providers to operate their own service or forum” by, among other things, “maintain[ing] accounts and advertis[ing] across multiple social media and other services, in addition to relying on ISPs, domain name registrars, and hosting providers.” If larger providers lacked protections for content posted by smaller providers, it is unlikely that they would make their services available to them. Loss of Section 230 protections could thus harm not only digital platforms that have dominant market share, but every-one down to the atomized worker in the gig economy merely trying to get word out about her services and to be matched with users most likely to be interested in such services. 

We can’t all be publishers 

The narrow interpretation of Section 230 sought in this case would make everyone who likes or shares content on a digital platform a publisher and liable for that content, which would be patently absurd. There are many reasons to like and share content besides endorsing it.  Again from the brief:

If Petitioners’ theory is correct, and Google truly is liable for recommending the content created by its users via an algorithm or otherwise, then every time a user of an interactive computer service shares a video, blog, or tweet created by another, then that user would become a developer of the underlying content and face potential liability for such content. Indeed, under Petitioners’ approach, by sharing another user’s content, the sharing user becomes the means by which that content reaches a broader audience. This is no different than what an algorithm does. 

And, as with algorithms, even though retweeting or sharing the content of another may not be an endorsement of a particular message, both are—at the very least—recommendations that the retweeted or shared content be viewed. Put differently, if suggesting content via an algorithm somehow falls outside of Section 230’s gambit by magically transforming one party’s speech into the speech of the platform, so too does retweeting it. 

All of this does not equate to an argument that digital platforms are never publishers. If a platform affirmatively endorses an idea or content, then that would constitute publishing and be subject to liability. However, given that some type of algorithm, chronological or other, is required to present information to users, the mere presentation of content cannot and should not constitute publication. 

Section 230 clearly is meeting the intent of Congress when it was created. If there are real problems with the current rules governing sharing digital content, Congress can fix them with new legislation. That is how such problems should be solved, not by the Supreme Court reinterpreting what Congress quite clearly intended. We would argue that Congress should not mess with Section 230 and should avoid trying to fix what is not broken.  

Who is more responsible?

The recent so-called Twitter Files and the Facebook Files revealed how, in recent years, the federal government has pressured and implicitly threatened digital platforms to suppress some speech the government did not like. However unhappy you may be with the content moderation decisions of any digital platform, giving the government the power to regulate those decisions has a clear outcome–more of what we saw them do to Twitter and Facebook, even when the government did not have the clear legal authority to do so. Weakening Section 230 would ensure that whichever political party is in power at a given time could steer the speech that is allowed online, and the online speech we see would be even more partisan than today. No one wants that.  

The post Changes to Section 230 would have devastating consequences ​for the internet and free speech appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Fines and fees are commonplace throughout the justice system. In many cases, fines are considered desirable because they are an intermediate form of punishment. In other words, slapping someone with a fine is less severe than incarceration but is tough punishment for many low-level offenses.

A person may be charged a fine for any criminal or civil infraction. In addition to any fines, they might also be charged a host of fees meant to cover court costs. The state court system in Florida is funded through general revenues, but a large share of funding for the state’s clerks of courts is provided by filing fees, service charges, and court costs that are collected from individuals when they interact with the court system.

Because fines and fees are not generally scaled based on income, they tend to disproportionately harm low-income people who are unable to pay. Failure to pay outstanding fines and fees can result in driver’s license suspensions and even incarceration. A recent report by the Fines and Fees Justice Institute found that nearly two million Floridians have their driver’s licenses suspended because of unpaid fines and fees. Considering that approximately 80% of Floridians drive themselves to work and many jobs require a driver’s license, suspending driver’s licenses for non-driving offenses reduces the likelihood those individuals will be able to pay their fines and fees. It is counterproductive to make it even more difficult for individuals to pay off their debts and create additional administrative costs for governments.

The fact that many people are financially unable to pay may provide some explanation for why governments are notoriously bad at collecting outstanding court debts. A report from the Brennan Center for Justice found that only 36% of the fines and fees assessed in Florida between 2012 and 2018 were actually collected, resulting in over $1.13 billion in cumulative unpaid fines and fees.

Even setting aside problems with collection, fines and fees are not a particularly stable source of revenue. In Florida, statewide fines and fees revenue has declined significantly over recent years—a fiscal issue that has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Florida’s courthouses were shuttered during the early months of the pandemic, leading to a substantial backlog of cases and disrupted revenue flows. Over that same period, lockdowns and stay-at-home orders kept many drivers off the road, reducing the number of traffic violations­­––a major source of fines and fees revenue in the state.

In the fiscal year ending in Sept. 2020, clerks of courts collected $377 million in fines and fees compared to $432 million in the year prior. Revenues in both years represent a dramatic decline from the $539 million collected in 2009. Declining revenues are already causing trouble for organizations and programs that depend on fines and fees revenue. Epilepsy Florida, for example, pulls in $5 from every seatbelt infraction in the state. In 2020, that translated to $240,000 compared to the whopping $1.1 million the group received in 2014, according to reporting by FL Keys News.

Fortunately, fines and fees revenue make up a very small portion of Florida’s budget, and there are many options for reform. Generally speaking, no program or agency should be specifically funded by fines and fees revenue. Instead, court revenue should be sent into the general fund to avoid poor incentive structures within the justice system.

Fees, which only exist to raise revenue, should arguably be eliminated. Meanwhile, fines, which serve as punishment, could be scaled to account for an individual’s ability to pay.

Florida could also eliminate fines and fees in juvenile cases and abandon the counterproductive practice of suspending driver’s licenses for failure to pay.

These basic reforms would help realign incentives for law enforcement and reduce the disparate impact of fines and fees on low-income communities. Florida lawmakers would be wise to address the fiscal challenges presented by declining fines and fees revenue and put an end to taxation by citation.

The post Florida must stop relying on taxation by citation appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The case was dismissed last month by United States District Court Judge Allen Winsor, who did rule that Fried held standing to bring the suit as she holds oversight over both Florida’s concealed carry licenses and medical marijuana programs.

Fried was joined by two plaintiffs who are registered medical marijuana patients and were barred from purchasing a firearm and a third co-plaintiff who is a gun owner with a qualifying medical condition who would like to participate in Florida’s medical marijuana program. The standing of all plaintiffs was affirmed by Judge Winsor because they suffer direct harm from the Justice Department’s enforcement actions. 

The Justice Department, through its Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Division, bars participants in state medical marijuana programs from owning or purchasing a firearm. One method for enforcing this prohibition is the inclusion of a question on ATF background checks about whether the prospective gun buyer uses illegal drugs. Although marijuana is legal for medical use under some state laws and legal for adult use in some states, it remains illegal at the federal level. By contrast, the use of federally legal pharmaceuticals with intoxicating characteristics, such as oxycontin, is not necessarily a reason for ATF to deny a gun purchase.

In court briefings, DOJ argued that there is a public interest in prohibiting marijuana users from possessing guns and that its regulations are consistent with historical restrictions on the Second Amendment. The department pointed out that the federal government has previously barred Catholics, Native Americans, panhandlers, and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms, so it has adequate historical precedent to bar medical marijuana patients. The Biden administration received backlash for relying on these comparisons and eventually backed off its claims that marijuana use makes individuals more inclined toward crime. Yet, the administration has continued to argue—in spite of the evidence—that medical marijuana patients might be more disposed to engage in domestic violence. 

Central to Fried’s claim is that congressional riders to federal appropriations bills specifically restrict the Justice Department from using any financial resources to impair state-regulated medical marijuana programs. Judge Winsor seemingly dismissed this claim prematurely, arguing that the department can bar gun possession because marijuana possession is a federal crime: 

Regardless of whether Plaintiffs are prosecuted (or whether Congress allocates funds for their prosecution), possession of marijuana remains a federal crime. The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment at best precludes prosecution now; it does not forever bless the plaintiffs’ actions. 

Winsor’s opinion does not consider that the Justice Department presumably spent financial resources to include its question about marijuana use on ATF background-check forms and pays staff to review these forms. While DOJ might argue that these enforcement actions are related to the regulation of gun ownership and not medical marijuana programs, it clearly has the effect of discriminating against medical marijuana patients using funds appropriated by Congress. On this basis, the ATF’s screening of prospective gun buyers on the basis of whether they use marijuana for medical purposes would appear as a clear violation of congressional appropriations directives. 

Also, there is no evidence that medical marijuana patients are any more disposed to engage in violent crime than other groups. On the contrary, the available evidence indicates that medical marijuana is associated with slightly lower crime rates. Fried expressed her disappointment in August that the Justice Department “would perpetuate such harmful and offensive prejudicial stereotypes that cannabis users are dangerous or mentally ill.” 

As Fried continues the appeal process, cannabis consumers in Florida and elsewhere should remain highly interested in the outcome. After all, any ruling against the Justice Department could result in positive outcomes for medical marijuana patients across the nation. 

The post Nikki Fried is right to sue for medical marijuana patients’ gun rights  appeared first on Reason Foundation.

California Proposition 1 (2022): Amends the state constitution to protect abortion rights, guarantee reproductive freedom

California Proposition 26 (2022): In-person sports betting regulation and tribal gaming expansion

California Proposition 27 (2022): Legalizes online sports betting, funds homelessness and mental health programs

California Proposition 28 (2022): Art and music K-12 education funding

California Proposition 29 (2022): Dialysis clinic requirements

California Proposition 31 (2022): Banning flavored tobacco products

Voters’ guides for other states and policy issues can be found here.

The post Voters’ guide to the 2022 California ballot propositions appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The states where Reason has produced voters’ guides on a number of statewide propositions and initiatives include:

California

Colorado

Florida

Georgia

In addition, Reason Foundation has done a large amount of relevant policy research on some topics that are being voted on in multiple states. As such, we have analyzed the ballot measures pertaining to these policy issues, including:

Consumer Freedom—Sports gambling, wine and alcohol sales, flavored tobacco bans, and more

Additional voters’ guides for other states and issues can be found here.

The post Voters’ guide to 2022 statewide ballot initiatives appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida Amendment 1 (2022): Disregard flood resistance improvements in property value assessments

Florida Amendment 2 (2022): Measure to abolish the Constitution Revision Commission

Voters’ guides for other states and policy issues can be found here.

The post Voters’ guide to Florida’s 2022 ballot measures appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida Amendment 2 on the November 2022 ballot would revise the Florida State Constitution to take out the section requiring and governing the Constitution Revision Commission (CRC). The Constitution Revision Commission meets every 20 years to consider and propose ballot initiatives to amend the state constitution. This would eliminate one formal means of putting on the ballot initiatives to change the state constitution, but a number of other ways to get initiatives on the ballot would remain.

Fiscal Impact

We could find no estimates of the cost of conducting the Constitution Revision Commission. Its members are not paid, and it only meets every 20 years, so the fiscal impact of Amendment 2 on Florida taxpayers would be very small.

Proponents’ Arguments

State Sen. Jeff Brandes (R) led the effort in the Florida legislature to put Amendment 2 on the ballot. Brandes has argued that both major political parties detest the Constitution Revision Commission, in part, because its members are appointed, not elected. Thus, they are not accountable to the voters. He tweeted “It’s rediscovered every 20yrs, has no rules, players have no experience, once it starts it can’t stop, crazy things pop out, and you never know how damaging they will be. Election night, you yell ‘Jumanji.’”

Brandes and other CRC critics say that citizens can amend the constitution with proposals from the legislature, citizen initiatives, a constitutional convention, and via the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission. They do not also need the CRC as a fifth mechanism, they say. 

Perhaps the single biggest criticism of the CRC is that many of the measures it proposes are things that should be legislative changes in law, not enshrined in the state constitution. Over the years, the fact that Florida citizens can only vote on ballot initiatives that change the constitution and do not have the option to change the law by initiative, as in other states, means the constitution is full of “issues of the day” rather than timeless rights and rules for the state.

Opponents’ Arguments

The Florida Sun-Sentinel editorial board has pointed out that decades of corruption led the U.S. Supreme Court to force a new state constitution for Florida and that the CRC was included in it “to protect Florida from ever being paralyzed again by the self-interests of an entrenched political empire.”

In that same spirit, the League of Women Voters of Florida opposes Amendment 2 because: 

“The Citizen Initiative process for amending the Constitution has already been significantly restricted by the state Legislature in recent years. Eliminating the Constitution Revision Commission will remove a generational opportunity for citizens to update their constitution. The League opposes any limits on citizens’ abilities to be architects of their own Florida Constitution.”

New College of Florida Professor Frank Alcock told us:

“The CRC is a mechanism that was intentionally built into our current state constitution during its formation in the 1960s. It’s unique among state constitutions and it reflects two important values of its designers: (1) the ability to adapt the constitution to changing times; (2) robust input and final approval of amendments on the part of the citizens of Florida. Like any institutional innovation, however, it can be exploited or used by those that control it. The CRC is what we make of it.”

State Sen. Darryl Rouson (D) served on the 2018 CRC and says:

“The CRC may not be perfect, but as lawmakers, we should work to improve it rather than scrap it. Abolishing the CRC along with other efforts to make it more difficult and more expensive to circulate citizens’ petitions to amend the Florida Constitution will make it harder for citizen voices to be heard in shaping the future of their state.” 

A 2020 poll by the LeRoy Collins Institute at Florida State University found that 87% of Floridians like having a commission do what the CRC does and provide an alternative to the legislature. About two-thirds of them also supported some changes to the CRC to address the concerns of critics.

Professor Alcock concluded:

“Amendment 2 would abolish the CRC entirely. While this would eliminate the political tactics that annoyed many Floridians this past cycle it would also remove an important feature of our state constitution that was deliberately put there by its designers. And let’s not forget that we have another 15 years before the next cycle that could be used to talk about less drastic reforms.”

Discussion

The Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) is a unique Florida institution, a commission that meets every 20 years to consider changes to the state constitution and agree upon ones to put before the voters as ballot measures. It is made up of 37 members. The governor appoints 15 members, the State Senate president appoints nine members, the speaker of the Florida house appoints nine, the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court appoints three, and the attorney general serves on it.

Opponents of the CRC, like Sen. Brandes, argue that this gives the current political establishment too much power to change the constitution. Supporters agree with that, but say that making changes to provide for a more broadly representative set of members to the CRC would be better than abolishing it. 

Floridians have been through three rounds of the CRC since the state constitution was created. In 1978, the commission was appointed all by Democrats, and not even one of the measures they put on the ballot was approved by a majority of voters. In 1998, CRC was bipartisan and all but one measure they proposed met with voter approval. In 2018, Republicans appointed all the CRC members and all seven of their proposals that went to the ballot were approved by over 60% of voters. 

Carlos Beruff, a Manatee County developer who chaired the 2018 CRC, showed that the central goal of the CRC was to put measures on the ballot that people want. He said:

“The first one wasn’t terribly successful. The second one, I think eight of the nine items they put on the ballot passed, so it was pretty successful. So, we are going to be very careful with the taxpayer’s time and money and only bring forward things that we think will pass that 60% litmus test.”

Indeed, in the 2018 election, voters not only amended the state constitution by approving the CRC’s proposed changes but also got to vote on constitutional changes proposed by the legislature and ones put on the ballot by citizen initiatives. 

Discussion about reforming, rather than abolishing, the CRC has been going on for years. Among the organizations and experts engaging in the discussion is the LeRoy Collins Institute at Florida State University, University of Florida Professor Mary Adkins, other legal scholars, and the League of Women Voters.  

Some common reforms suggested include:

• Making CRC members more diverse and bipartisan rather than all being appointed by the party in control at the time the commission happens.
• Creating a simple set of rules and procedures for all CRCs in the future so they do not make up their own each time.
• Imposing a single-subject requirement so that the CRC cannot “bundle” different issues into one initiative. 
• Apply Florida’s open meetings laws to the CRC.

Another possibility would be to create a citizen legislative initiative process where Floridians could vote on legislative changes, not just changes to the state constitution. Most of the issues people bring to the CRC each time it convenes are legislative issues they are frustrated the legislature has not addressed. Lacking a direct democracy mechanism to change the law, they take the only route they have, addressing the issue via the state constitution. A constitutional amendment to create a citizen legislative initiative process and require the CRC to focus on issues appropriate to address in the constitution would both improve the CRC process and answer many of its critics and give citizens a more appropriate outlet for change.

Voters’ guides for other states and policy issues can be found here.

The post Florida Amendment 2 (2022): Measure to abolish the Constitution Revision Commission appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida Amendment 1, the disregard flood resistance improvements in property value assessments measure, would revise the state’s constitution, allowing the state legislature to pass laws exempt property improvements designed to protect against flood damage from property tax assessments.

For example, a homeowner could put drains and buried culverts on his property to improve the drainage of heavy rains or build a berm to protect against a wetland overflow. But, under current law, these improvements would increase the value of the property and the property taxes the homeowner must pay, which might be a disincentive to make the improvements.

The state constitution currently allows the legislature to exempt property improvements to protect against wind damage, but not from flood damage. So, Amendment 1 would simply add flood damage protection to the list of things the state legislature can exempt from property taxes. 

Fiscal Impact

Amendment 1 would result in small reductions in property tax revenues to the state for flood protection improvements that would be taxed under current law. But that may be offset by lower losses to Citizens Insurance, the state-owned insurer of last resort that has to cover flood damage to hundreds of thousands of properties across Florida. It could also reduce some need for public expenditures on flood control.

Proponents’ Arguments

Florida House Speaker Chris Sprowls (R) argues that the state has to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on flood control to protect properties and Amendment 1 would allow the state to incentivize private property owners to take on more of that responsibility. State Rep. Linda Chaney (R) says, “Homeowners who are taking proactive measures to protect their property from flooding should not only be rewarded but they should be incentivized.”

Opponents’ Arguments

There is no organized opposition to Amendment 1. 

Discussion

Florida’s state constitution currently allows property tax exemptions for wind damage protection improvements to properties. Since hurricanes tend to destroy properties by both wind and flood damage, extending property tax exemptions to flood damage protection improvements makes sense. It would incentivize property owners to reduce the damage storms inflict on their properties, and could reduce property insurance claims when the state property insurance market is in a crisis, and reduce the risks of expensive taxpayer bailouts. 

Voters’ guides for other states and policy issues can be found here.

The post Florida Amendment 1 (2022): Disregard flood resistance improvements in property value assessments appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Reason Foundation’s policy analysts are examining statewide ballot initiatives on issues related to consumer freedom, including, sports gambling, flavored tobacco and e-cigarettes, wine and alcohol sales, and more.

California Proposition 26 (2022): In-person sports betting regulation and tribal gaming expansion

California Proposition 27 (2022): Legalizes online sports betting, funds homelessness and mental health programs

California Proposition 31 (2022): Banning flavored tobacco products

Colorado Initiative 96 (2022): Concerning liquor licenses

Colorado Initiative 121 (2022): Sales of wine in grocery stores

Colorado Initiative 122 (2022): Third-party delivery of alcoholic beverages

Maryland Question 4 (2022): Marijuana legalization amendment

Voters’ guides for other states and policy issues can be found here.

The post The 2022 ballot initiatives about consumer freedom issues appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Colorado Initiative 96 (2022): Concerning liquor licenses

Colorado Initiative 121 (2022): Sales of wine in grocery stores

Colorado Initiative 122 (2022): Third-party delivery of alcoholic beverages

Voters’ guides for other states and policy issues can be found here.

The post Voters’ guide to the 2022 Colorado ballot initiatives appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Georgia temporary property tax change for disaster areas amendment

Georgia amendment to suspend compensation for public officials indicted for a felony

Georgia ballot measure to expand tax exemptions for family-owned farms

Georgia measure to make timber equipment exempt from property taxes

Voters’ guides for other states and policy issues can be found here.

The post Voters’ guide to Georgia’s statewide ballot questions (2022) appeared first on Reason Foundation.

1. A mileage-based user fee has advantages compared to the gas tax:

• Fairness: MBUFs ensure that the drivers who use highways are the ones who pay for them.
  • Choice: MBUFs give users more options over how and when they pay the fee.
  • Transparency: Most people don’t know what they currently pay in fuel taxes. MBUFs are much more transparent to users. Drivers see what they pay and what they get for their money.
  • Better Incentives: MBUFs can give better information and incentives to drivers and state transportation departments on the efficiency, quality, and costs of roadways.
  • Flexibility: MBUFs allow states to properly prioritize and adjust highway expenditures as conditions, consumer demand, and technology change.

• A mileage-based user fee pilot can examine common concerns:
  • Privacy: Pilot programs typically use private account managers to test MBUF options and policies and ensure drivers have privacy and control over their data.
  • Double Taxation: MBUFs should be a replacement for fuel taxes, not a supplement to them.
  • Diversion: MBUFs can be dedicated to roadways, unlike gas taxes and other infrastructure funding sources, which have been diverted away from their primary purposes.  
  • Costs of Collection: These costs are currently higher than the gas tax but decrease with scale.
  • Equity: Fuel taxes can be regressive. They impact low-income families, who tend to have less fuel-efficient vehicles. MBUFs charge for road use, not fuel use, and are less regressive than gas taxes.
  • Rural Drivers: Rural drivers already typically pay more in fuel taxes due to the longer distances and less fuel-efficient vehicles they tend to drive. Thus, rural drivers can benefit from MBUFs.

• Mileage-based user fees are already widespread in the United States:
  • Twenty states and two multi-state coalitions have conducted MBUF pilot programs.
  • Closer to Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia have already run MBUF pilot programs.
  • Virginia, as well as Oregon and Utah, have moved ahead with permanent MBUF programs.
  • The Federal Highway Administration provides grants to states to test MBUFs.

The post Testing mileage-based user fees as a replacement for Georgia’s gas tax appeared first on Reason Foundation.

This issue recently reappeared when, as the New York Post reported, “Twitter locked the account of a right-leaning parody site The Babylon Bee after it awarded Rachel Levine, the transgender Biden administration official, the title of ‘man of the year.’ The Babylon Bee story was a reaction to USA Today’s naming of Levine, who is US assistant secretary for health for the US Department of Health and Human Services, as one of its ‘women of the year’ last week.”

Social media companies are free to set their terms of service and moderate content as they choose. It doesn’t mean their policies are smart. In this case, Twitter’s suspension of the Babylon Bee makes Twitter appear to be oblivious to satire and comedy. We can think a social media platform’s decision is wrong and misguided — the Bee suspension is — but private companies are free to get things wrong as they try to do what they think is best for their platforms.

The best way for customers to respond to businesses that have policies we don’t like is to take our business elsewhere. One of the worst responses is to call for government regulations to force those business owners to toe our preferred lines.

The last thing anyone who cares about free speech should want are politicians and government bureaucrats deciding what can and cannot be on social media platforms. Bureaucrats and regulators would be worse at finding an appropriate balance of content moderation than private firms, and their mistakes would likely apply to all platforms. The right doesn’t want people chosen by President Joe Biden regulating all social media platforms and the left doesn’t want people chosen by former President Donald Trump choosing what social media content is and isn’t acceptable. And none of us want content rules that change whenever the political party in power changes.

Like any private business, social media platforms are based on mutually beneficial exchanges where both business and customers benefit. If either the business or a customer does not feel they’ll benefit from the exchange, they have the right to walk away. Just as we can all decide we don’t want to use a company’s services, that company can also decide it doesn’t want to provide us services. A Christian baker has the right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. And any customers who don’t like the baker’s decisions are free to take their business elsewhere.

Indeed our own organization, Reason Foundation, has had some of its news and analysis content wrongly flagged by social media platforms. While we certainly disagreed with the platforms, we entirely support their right to choose what goes on and is shared on their platforms. And, yes, companies like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have developed great influence in our society, but social media companies aren’t the government. They aren’t required by the Constitution to let us speak on their platforms.

These companies face a complex task trying to figure out what customers want, how to provide it, and how to make a profit. They certainly get things wrong, as in the case of Twitter’s Babylon Bee suspension. But the gloomy alternative is the government regulating speech, which would also produce a chilling effect whereby social media companies would likely forgo any kind of controversial content to avoid regulatory sanction.  This would be a tragedy given the diversity of conversations occurring on the internet.

Beyond pleasing customers and making a profit, it is also a private business’s First Amendment right to promote whatever speech it wants to. In 1974, the Supreme Court struck down a “right of reply” law that forced newspapers to publish the response of political candidates whose records they wrote about. The law would have forced private newspapers to print speech against their will.

Similarly, in 1995, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring a private parade to include a gay rights group because it violated “the fundamental First Amendment rule that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message.”

Whether it is a parade, a tweet, or a Facebook post, the constitutional principle is that users have no right to force platform providers to host their speech. Rather than calling for government regulation forcing social media companies to do what politicians or certain groups want, media consumers should develop skills at evaluating the merits of information we see online and making good decisions about what social media platforms and news sources we can trust. It is up to us to determine where we go to read, view, and learn things we don’t already know and we’re free to choose which news sites and social media platforms we want to be customers of.

A version of this column previously appeared in the Daily Caller.

The post Social media companies are free to make bad decisions appeared first on Reason Foundation.

This means that many families’ public education options are limited by where they can afford to live, which leads to unequal education options for children because housing and schooling options have long been intertwined.

As the U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee reported in 2019, “Despite public education’s promise of being a free, inclusive and equalizing force, families are faced with the reality that attending a high-performing public school often requires paying more for housing, and many students’ educational opportunities are limited as a result.”

Attendance zones and district boundaries place geographic limitations on the education options available to children that all too often reflect historic racial and socioeconomic divisions.

A straightforward policy reform — open enrollment — eliminates or weakens school attendance zones and district boundaries so families’ education options are not tethered to their geographic locations. With open enrollment, students can enroll in any district-run school so long as the schools have available capacity.

Open enrollment ends the monopolies districts maintain through residential assignment and forces district-run schools to compete with one another. In fact, a 2016 report by California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office showed that a robust education marketplace can have positive effects for students and school districts.

Of the 10,200 students participating during the 2014-15 school year “more than 90% of students (transferred) to districts with higher test scores than their home districts.”

At the same time, California school “home districts” (school districts that lost students) improved their instructional offerings and expanded efforts to engage with their communities to better compete with other school districts.

As school districts responded to market forces, many home districts experienced an increase in student test scores over time. California’s open enrollment program showed that competition between school districts can encourage improvements. Research indicates that increased competition from school choice options, such as charter schools or private school scholarships, can also incentivize district-run schools to improve.

Recognizing the advantages of a vibrant education marketplace, Florida’s public school choice program — Controlled Open Enrollment — is one of the most robust in the nation. In fact, nearly 10% of students enrolled in Florida’s district-run schools did not attend their assigned school in the 2018-19 school year.

Controlled open enrollment allows Florida children to enroll in any public district-run school with open seats since 2016. Not only does COE allow students to cross attendance zone boundaries inside the school district (intradistrict open enrollment), but students can also attend any school in another school district (interdistrict open enrollment).

Parents, however, of students participating in COE must often provide transportation to their children’s new schools.
All 67 school districts in the state are required to participate in COE and annually report the number of available seats to the Florida Department of Education. All COE policies must abide by a variety of requirements, including adhering to all federal desegregation requirements and permitting parents to declare school preferences including placement of siblings in the same school.

The state requires school districts to ensure preferential admission to transfer applicants who currently reside in the school district or who relocate due to foster care, a court-ordered change in custody due to a divorce, their active-duty military parent receiving a new station assignment.

If there are more COE applicants to a particular school than available seats, the district must implement a lottery to determine transfer student admission.

Florida, however, can make its COE program even better. Specifically, state policymakers should require the Florida Department of Education to publish data on transfer students. This change would ensure that schools don’t reject transfer applicants without good reason.

Nonetheless, Florida’s COE remains a prime example of how families exercise public education choice and should serve as a model to other states.

In the first three years of the program, more than 787,500 students participated in Florida’s COE. The fact that nearly 55% of COE students participated in the federal Free and Reduced-Price Lunch program during that time shows that COE gives low-income families access to education options outside their geographically assigned school.

Sarasota County Public Schools has participated in COE since the program’s beginning in 2016. By the 2018-19 academic year, the school district’s number of COE transfer students increased by nearly four times more than during the program’s first year there.

Almost half of COE students between 2016-17 and 2018-19 also participated in the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch program. During that time frame, most of Sarasota County Public Schools’ 8,977 transfer students were intradistrict transfers, with only 1.4% of transfer students living outside the school district.

During the 2018-19 school year, Sarasota County Public Schools accepted the most inter-district transfer students when compared to five other Florida school districts of similar size (Escambia, Lake, Marion, St. Lucie and St. Johns).
However, both Escambia County School District and St. Lucie Public Schools gained more intradistrict transfers that year than Sarasota County Public Schools. In fact, approximately 66% of students enrolled in St. Lucie Public Schools as intradistrict transfers during the 2018-19 academic year.

These enrollment patterns illustrate how families, especially those from low-income households, are willing to vote with their feet when unfettered from geographic attendance zones and district boundaries. K-12 open enrollment laws can break down the lingering effects of antiquated policies that intentionally divided communities based on wealth and race. Most importantly, they are student-centered, letting families make the education decisions that are best for their children, regardless of where they live.

A version of this column previously appeared in the Sarasota Observer.

The post K-12 open enrollment is breaking down barriers in Florida appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The nation’s attention has recently been on the rising national debt due to congress raising the debt ceiling. As Reuters reported:

The U.S. Senate approved legislation on Thursday to temporarily raise the federal government’s $28.4 trillion debt limit and avoid the risk of a historic default this month, but put off until early December a decision on a longer-lasting remedy.

The two major political parties may have different priorities, but when in control of the White House and Congress, they both present false choices of the debt ceiling that sound something like, ‘We have to raise the debt ceiling this time to avoid defaulting on our national debt because we can’t reduce any spending anywhere on any of our preferred programs and priorities while we’re in control of the government.’

Eventually, this piling up of debt and the runaway federal spending must be stopped. For decades members of Congress and presidents have demonstrated their unwillingness to control their debt-financed spending. When they have the opportunity to make and follow policies to restore prudent fiscal management and accountability, they choose instead to spend on their pet policies. At some point, those in the federal government need to learn to live within their, i.e. taxpayers’, means. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution requiring them to do so. When the Constitution was ratified, the federal budget was only $4 million. Today, the federal budget is $4 trillion.

As the national debt nears $29 trillion, the conversation about this problem needs to change. Article V of the Constitution provides that two-thirds of the states may call a Convention of the States to propose one or more amendments to the U.S. Constitution, without the approval of Congress, to impose and maintain fiscal responsibility upon the federal government. If such a convention were called, 38 states would then have to ratify any constitutional amendments for them to become part of the U.S. Constitution.

Such an outcome may seem quite improbable in the current polarized political times. But, throughout history states have acted several times in this way. There are debates amongst legal scholars over how specific or similar resolutions calling for a convention of the states must be. Under some counts, 33 states have passed resolutions calling for an Article V convention, and a 34^th state, creating the needed two-thirds majority, seems likely to pass it next year. In terms of a specific resolution, in 2019, the Colorado Fiscal Institute said states were getting close to the needed number on a balanced budget amendment:

The Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force (BBATF), one of the primary groups working towards a balanced budget amendment, began in 1957 when Indiana passed the first Article V resolution on this topic. Today, 28 states – including Colorado – have passed resolutions calling for a convention to discuss a balanced budget amendment. That means if six more states call for a balanced budget amendment, a constitutional convention could be convened. Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington have all been targeted by BBATF.  

The process of creating a constitutional convention to consider amendments to constrain federal spending and debt would likely radically change the tired existing debates around federal spending and the national debt. A convention would also be a real opportunity to finally create some sensible constraints on federal spending and taxation, requiring sensible financial management, transparency, and accountability from the federal government. 

When political leaders are ready to address these issues, we have developed a package of proposals, The Bill of Financial Responsibilities, showing how they can start to tackle the nation’s troubling debt.

The post The growing need to structurally address the national debt appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The 2021 infrastructure report card by the American Society of Civil Engineers gives California a C-,  which is worse than the C the state received in 2012. As the state’s economy has grown, so has state infrastructure spending, up to about $12 billion per year recently, but the condition of California’s infrastructure keeps getting worse. 

Similarly, Reason Foundation’s Annual Highway Report found California’s state-controlled highways cost taxpayers a lot of money but are in relatively poor condition:

In 2020 California’s highway system ranked 43rd in the nation in overall cost-effectiveness and condition, according to the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation. This is no change from the previous report, where California also ranked 43rd overall.

In safety and performance categories, California ranks 18th in overall fatality rate, 24th in structurally deficient bridges, 45th in traffic congestion, 44th in urban Interstate pavement condition, and 41st in rural Interstate pavement condition.

On spending, California ranks 42nd in total spending per mile and 40th in capital and bridge costs per mile.

In this recent episode of Pacific Research Institute’s Next Round podcast, I discussed my chapter on infrastructure in their new book “Saving California,” which aims to provide policy reforms for the state.

We discussed why the state needs to take the politics out of its infrastructure decision-making process and how California can focus on providing value for the folks who pay for infrastructure, rely upon it, and use it. 

The post How California’s recall election might change the state’s course on infrastructure appeared first on Reason Foundation.

August will see several more trips to the ISS and more launches of satellites. Additionally, the Biden administration signed an agreement with the European Space Agency to use more satellites to address climate change through earth science research. This increased space traffic serves a wide array of purposes and represents vast investments by the private space industry and government. But these investments are going to increasingly be jeopardized by the massive amount of space junk already circling Earth.

There’s plenty of room to fly up there, but, believe it or not, NASA estimates there are already 23,000 pieces of debris larger than 10 centimeters and over 500,000 pieces of smaller junk in orbit. This space junk, or orbital debris, travels at high speeds and even a small piece can cause serious damage or destruction if it hits a spacecraft or satellite.

The space debris includes thousands of dead and retired satellites, parts of spacecraft from decades of missions, items exploded in warfare testing, and more.

Dodging space junk is a regular requirement for spacecraft in orbit. The International Space Station had to maneuver 25 times between 1999 and 2018 to avoid collisions, and it had to dodge debris three times in 2020.

Monitoring this debris is going to be a major issue as private space travel and the space economy grow. In 2019, the global space economy amounted to about $366 billion. Of this, $271 billion was in the satellite industry and $123 billion was directly in satellite services. As the world increasingly becoming reliant on satellites U.S. and global satellite businesses bear the brunt of the failure to track and remove orbital debris.

As Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), chair of the Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Science and Space, said recently, we need to be proactive on space debris “rather than learning by a terrible accident … but we don’t quite have the sense of urgency we need.”

Urgency means committing to better space traffic management, and tracking and removing orbital debris.

Orbital debris management is not well organized within the government. Right now, the Department of Defense (DOD) does most tracking of space debris for the U.S. out of the need to protect military satellites and national security interests. NASA has its own less advanced systems for tracking debris. However, orbital debris management is not just about tracking debris anymore. It is also about forming collision warning systems and safely managing traffic in space. To do this efficiently, we need a civil repository for all orbital debris components, something that many commercial space companies have already created on their own to stay aware of orbital debris and help protect their satellites in space.

Tracking debris may be a national security priority, but providing space traffic control is not really in the Defense Department’s mission.

We should be utilizing the private sector’s expertise and advancements in this area. For example, Astroscale has contracts with both the Japanese and European space agencies to develop orbital debris removal capability. And responsibility for developing collision warnings and space traffic management would be best suited for the Office of Space Commerce, an office with existing connections to the commercial space industry, NASA and DOD.

Partnering with the debris tracking and removal systems private companies are developing while freeing up DOD to focus on military awareness and NASA to focus on research and development would be the most efficient way forward.

If the government works with private industry through strategic public-private partnerships, the U.S. can best address the threats posed by orbital debris and create sustainable policies for safe space exploration.

A version of this column first appeared in The Hill.

The post As Commercial Space Travel Becomes Reality, Debris and Space Traffic Management Becomes More Important appeared first on Reason Foundation.

As this state legislation worked its way to the governor’s desk, it was widely pointed out that these restrictions are blatantly unconstitutional.  The First Amendment, as interpreted by many court precedents, clearly says the government cannot mandate that private companies carry speech they find objectionable or offensive—just like Christian cake makers cannot be forced by the government to bake gay wedding cakes, or a liberal newspaper can’t be forced to publish conservative op-eds.   

So, it took less than six weeks for a federal court to block the Florida social media law. The judge pointed out the clear violation of the First Amendment, writing, “The legislation compels providers to host speech that violates their standards—speech they otherwise would not host—and forbids providers from speaking as they otherwise would.” And adding that, “[T]he Governor’s signing statement and numerous remarks of legislators show rather clearly that the legislation is viewpoint-based.”

The state’s GOP leaders really did give themselves away in their joint statement at the signing of the bill. Gov. DeSantis said big tech would no longer be able to censor and discriminate in favor of their ideology. Florida Lt. Gov Jeanette Nuñez claimed the bill “fights against big tech oligarchs that contrive, manipulate, and censor if you voice views that run contrary to their radical leftist narrative.”

Florida Senate President Wilton Simpson said Florida would “stop the abuses that are possible when big tech goes unchecked.”

Florida House Speaker Chris Sprowls said it is time to “stop the abuses that are possible when big tech goes unchecked.”

And numerous other GOP legislators chimed in, claiming big tech oligarchs threaten free speech. 

Virtually everything they said is untrue and deeply contrary to the conservative principles they claim to uphold.

Social media platforms, or any private person or company, cannot censor anyone. Only the government can forbid the promulgation of speech by a person—that is what censor means.

A popular company is not an oligarchy or a monopoly. It is deeply disturbing to see Republican leaders decide their desire to force popular social media companies to do their bidding is more important than standing up for the First Amendment and the rest of the Constitution. 

Nor has the governor applied his justification for the law consistently and fairly. The law exempts some favored companies from the restrictions—like Disney. Yes, Disney does social media, which might be a clue that Twitter and Facebook are not monopolies: they compete against each other and Disney. And if that sentence didn’t give you a headache you are not paying attention.

So Florida’s state lawmakers thought it important that Disney, with its Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando, be allowed to not include posts it finds objectionable, but those lefties in Silicon Valley should not be able to do so. You begin to see why the judge said the law is rather clearly viewpoint-based. 

You can see that even more in Gov. DeSantis’ reaction to Twitter blocking Rebekah Jones, the former Florida Department of Health web employee who accused his administration of covering up COVID-19 deaths. The governor says he opposes social media companies blocking people and the sharing of stories based on their ideology, and the new law he signed forbids it. Yet when Jones was blocked by Twitter, DeSantis said, “This decision was long overdue. Rebekah Jones is the Typhoid Mary of COVID-19 disinformation and has harmed many hardworking DOOH employees with her defamatory conspiracy theories.”

So, he actually only opposes social media blocking people or statements he doesn’t like.

The state attempting to control the decisions of private parties like social media platforms on what content they will or will not share cannot help but fall into this kind of political opportunism. As the lawsuit against the Florida law stated, it “was motivated by animus toward popular technology companies—animus specifically driven by disapproval of the companies’ perceived political and other viewpoints.”

The First Amendment explicitly was created to prevent that. If the Florida law were legitimate, then any Democrat state would be equally legitimate with a law restricting conservative social media.  It’s a vicious cycle of political manipulation and control with no good end. 

Many people who consume social media want moderation by the social media platforms. They want some lines to be drawn so that the platform doesn’t get swamped by hate or other unacceptable behavior. The companies provide that in a competitive market, and the ones that do a good job of providing a system people enjoy using get more customers. It’s pretty straightforward and consistent with what Florida’s GOP leaders say when they talk about the rest of the market.  

Replacing private moderation in a competitive market that lets all of us find the social media platforms we prefer with government control of content would be a disaster for free speech and the rest of our liberties.  

There are a multitude of search engines and social platforms to choose from. The right response to behavior by any one of them that you don’t like is to go try a different one. And recognize that social media is still simply one of many ways any person or political candidate can get their voice out. There remain all the instruments of conventional media from newspapers to talk radio to rallies and podcasts, and who knows what we will see next. Investor websites highlight dozens of “new social media startups to watch in 2021.”

There is plenty of competition and no need for dumb and unconstitutional laws that try to control social media companies the politician of the day doesn’t like.  

A version of this column originally appeared in the Sarasota Observer.

The post Florida’s Social Media Law Is Unconstitutional appeared first on Reason Foundation.

This is an opportunity for Michigan to promote good law enforcement from multiple angles – providing needed support for officers while also making improvements in law and policies designed to deal with problems that have fueled a rift between so many citizens and law enforcement. But one critical criminal justice reform missing from both the House Republicans’ and the bipartisan Senate packages is legislation that would make police disciplinary records more transparent, similar to those for records of misconduct by teachers.

The minority of law enforcement officers who commit misconduct create real problems that ripple throughout the criminal justice system. Innocence organizations in Michigan and throughout the country have seen case after case involving the same officers fabricating evidence, coercing confessions, and using other illegal or improper tactics to build cases against suspects. But it takes years, even decades, to establish a pattern of police misconduct showing that a particular officer is causing innocent people to go to prison. The problem officer could be identified much faster if police departments were required to retain disciplinary records and make them available through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

To help separate these problem officers from the many good officers, we need transparency. House Bill 4291 authored by Rep. Tyrone Carter, a former law enforcement officer himself, would improve access to records of police misconduct and ensure that these records are properly retained in order for public access to be an effective source of information and a tool for change.

These changes would be good for law enforcement itself. As Rep. Carter puts it, “As a former law enforcement officer, I know that serious reforms are needed to repair and strengthen the broken trust between communities and law enforcement.”

The Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a group of police, prosecutors, judges, and other criminal justice professionals, has stated: “Without transparency in policing, the public will not trust us, which makes our job harder. Shining a light on officer misconduct and how it is investigated by departments is a necessary first step towards improving police-community trust in Michigan.”

Police misconduct transparency is also good for prosecutors who want to avoid having cases overturned due to police misconduct. And they would be good for citizens who want to trust the police with full faith and confidence.

Michigan taxpayers have already shouldered the burden of millions of dollars that the state has paid out in civil settlements over police misconduct cases and wrongful imprisonment compensation, and it would be remiss to increase police resources without also implementing improvements to reveal and weed out bad actors who are causing wrongful convictions and forcing all of us to pay for their misconduct.

Transparency should focus on officers who conduct real misconduct, not technical violations or breaking mundane procedural rules. And the system should make it just as clear when police officers are cleared of misconduct as when the misconduct is substantiated.

Transparency in police disciplinary records will show that serious misconduct is confined to a small number of law enforcement officers, and it will make it easier for the far larger group of good officers to do their jobs with a community that will have more trust in the police.

A version of this column originally appeared in the Detroit News.

The post More Accountability and Police Improvements Are Needed in Michigan appeared first on Reason Foundation.