MoCo State Delegate Wilkin’s Anti-Free Speech Bill Gets Dramatically Watered-Down, Passes Both Chambers

Tags
Keywords:

A quick follow up to our story about the draconian, anti-free speech Maryland House Bill 333, co-sponsored by Montgomery County based delegate Jheanelle Wilkins (Democrat, representing part of Silver Spring).

It passed.  Unfortunately, it is now headed to Governor (and sometimes fantasy baseball player) Wes Moore’s desk.  It’ll be signed and become law.

The good news?  The bill was dramatically watered down and is basically a shell of what the delegate intended it to be (which was to create a literal spying apparatus within large social media companies).  Delegate Wilkins wanted X, Meta and others to have imbedded hall monitors, entrusted with monitoring and ratting out [to the state of Maryland AG] those users who might have simply shared a meme or a sarcastic post.

Anyways, here is the “synopsis” provided by the Maryland General Assembly website:

Requiring the State Board of Elections to maintain a portal on the State Board’s website that the public may use to report election disinformation; requiring the State Board to conduct a periodic review of material submitted by the public through the portal and, to the extent necessary, issue corrective information or refer submissions to the State Prosecutor; and defining “influence” for purposes of certain provisions of law prohibiting improper influence related to voting.

Ah yes.  Nothing says “celebrating Maryland’s diversity and equity” like… being a busybody and scouring the depths of the internet to “report election disinformation” to a “State Board of Elections portal”.

Will the State Board of Elections start an ad campaign soon for this tattle-tale “portal”?

“See a meme, report a meme.”

“Don’t share it.  Report it.”

“Comedy could steal a vote.”

Oh well.  The good news is that other delegates in Annapolis and even state senators knew it was unconstitutional as written originally by Delegate Wilkins and others, so it was watered down in the extreme.  As we stated back in early February:

This would seem to run aground of the first amendment of the United States Constitution, as disputing or voicing opinion (yes even on social media) about election results is — protected speech.


Sign up to receive a summary of articles delivered to your inbox ONCE a month

We don’t spam! We NEVER share your email address.