Fact Check: Social media posts omit key details of Texas bill claimed to criminalize political memes
Claim:
The Texas House of Representatives passed a bill to criminalize political memes.
Rating:
Context:
House Bill 366 requires certain groups of people, including officeholders, candidates and political committees, to disclose if their political advertising content includes "appearance, speech, or conduct that did not occur in reality" or was generated by artificial intelligence. It applies to people whose political speech is already regulated by the Texas Electoral Code and Texas Ethics Committee — not the general public. As the people affected by the prospective legislation disclose that something they post has been digitally altered, they would not face the bill's suggested misdemeanor charge.
In late April and early May 2025, a rumor circulated online that the Texas House of Representatives passed a bill to criminalize political memes.
For example, one X user wrote (archived): "The Texas House passed a bill to CRIMINALIZE POLITICAL MEMES. House Bill 366 would LOCK UP ANYONE FOR A YEAR unless political memes or altered media have a gov disclaimer. Why is TEXAS DOING THIS?!"
(X user @Carlos__Turcio)
The claim appeared on Facebook (archived), Threads (archived), Bluesky (archived) and Reddit (archived). Snopes readers also emailed to ask whether it was true that Texas was criminalizing political memes.
However, these posts omitted important aspects of House Bill 366, which passed through the Texas House of Representatives on a 102-40 vote on April 30, 2025.
The bill would require "political advertising" — a broad term that could include online material such as memes — to carry a disclosure if it contained "appearance, speech, or conduct that did not occur in reality" or was generated by artificial intelligence.
But the bill — and its proposed Class A misdemeanor charge for omitting such a disclosure — would apply to three groups of people specified within the bill rather than the general public or "anyone," as some online claims suggested. Additionally, at the time of this writing, HB 366 still had to pass a vote in the Texas Senate before it could move to the governor's desk and become law. Given the above, we rated this claim false.
At the time of this writing, HB 366 would require disclosures on "certain political advertising" containing "altered media." According to the bill:
A person may not, with the intent to influence an election, knowingly cause to be published, distributed, or broadcast political advertising that includes an image, audio recording, or video recording of an officeholder's or candidate's appearance, speech, or conduct that did not occur in reality, including an image, audio recording, or video recording that has been altered using generative artificial intelligence technology.
The bill said that alterations affecting "the saturation, brightness, contrast, color, or any other superficial quality of the image or video" or political advertising that already included a disclosure that altered content "did not occur in reality" would be exempt from HB 366's disclosure requirement.
HB 366 defines "a person" as someone who (link added by Snopes):
(1) is an officeholder, candidate, or political committee;
(2) makes expenditures during a reporting period that in the aggregate exceed $100 for political advertising, other than an expense to cover the basic cost of hardware, messaging software, and bandwidth; or
(3) publishes, distributes, or broadcasts political advertising described by Subsection (b) in return for consideration.
Therefore, so long as the people named by the prospective legislation disclose that the content they post or share contains digitally manipulated material, they will not face a misdemeanor charge.
Some House Republicans aimed tough criticisms at HB 366, saying that it targets (archived) political memes. They also spread fear (archived) about who could be jailed under the bill and called the prospective legislation anti-First Amendment and unconstitutional (archived).
Republican Texas Rep. Dade Phelan, who sponsored the bill, repeatedly said, both during a March hearing (at 4:00) in the Committee on State Affairs and in the legislative session that passed HB 366, that the bill would not target the general public. On April 30, 2025, Phelan said (at 2:09:27):
This bill applies to individuals who are currently, whose political speech is currently being regulated by the state of Texas, either through statute or through rules — the Texas Ethics Commission. The "persons," line 10 through 18, are already required to have disclosures. They have to have "Political ad paid for by." That's the same universe that is currently being regulated, that is being regulated in this bill. No new individual, no new person, is being brought in to HB 366. I know that's the narrative out there on Twitter, or social media, it is not accurate.
Phelan was referring to the existing Texas Election Code's Title 15, Chapter 255 that regulates political advertising and campaign communications. Phelan's bill, if made law, would add a section to Chapter 255.
Texas Ethics Committee rules, which Phelan also referenced in his April 30 appearance, further exempt regular members of the public from political advertising disclosure requirements. According to Chapter 26, a disclosure statement is not required on:
(2) political advertising posted or re-posted on an Internet website, as long as the person posting or re-posting the political advertising:
(i) is not an officeholder, candidate, or political committee; and
(ii) did not make an expenditure exceeding $100 in a reporting period for political advertising beyond the basic cost of hardware messaging software and bandwidth.
At the time of this writing, HB 366 still had to pass a vote in the Texas Senate before it could become law. The Texas Ethics Committee would decide how the disclosure required by the bill would look if it passed.
Commission Rules Chapter 26. https://www.ethics.state.tx.us/rules/commission/ch26.php#:~:text=(2)%20political%20advertising,software%20and%20bandwidth. Accessed 2 May 2025.
ELECTION CODE CHAPTER 255. REGULATING POLITICAL ADVERTISING AND CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATIONS. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.255.htm. Accessed 2 May 2025.
"Https://House.Texas.Gov/Videos/21926." Texas House of Representatives, 30 Apr. 2025, http://house.texas.gov/videos/21926.
PENAL CODE CHAPTER 12. PUNISHMENTS. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/pe/htm/pe.12.htm#:~:text=Sec.%2012.21.%20%20CLASS,fine%20and%20confinement. Accessed 2 May 2025.
Phelan, Dave. Relating to Required Disclosures on Certain Political Advertising That Contains Altered Media; Creating a Criminal Offense. H.B. No. 366, 27 Feb. 2025, https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/pdf/HB00366E.pdf#navpanes=0.
POLITICAL ADVERTISING What You Need to Know. Texas Ethics Commission, 16 July 2019, https://www.ethics.state.tx.us/data/resources/advertising/Gpol_adv.pdf.
PROCEEDINGS. Texas House of Representatives, 30 Apr. 2025, https://journals.house.texas.gov/hjrnl/89r/pdf/89RDAY53FINAL.PDF#page=41.
Solanki, Sneha. "Consideration in Contracts: Elements and Types." Thomson Reuters Law Blog, 13 Dec. 2024, https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/consideration-legal-glossary/.
"State Affairs." Texas House of Representatives, 12 Mar. 2025, http://house.texas.gov/videos/21298.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In a first for states, Texas might put MAHA warning labels on snack foods
A customer shops for produce at an H-E-B grocery store in Austin, Texas, in February. The Texas legislature recently passed a bill that would require warning labels on foods that contain certain artificial additives and dyes. (Photo by) In a first-of-its-kind effort, the Texas legislature has passed a bill to require warning labels on foods such as Mountain Dew and white bread that contain certain artificial additives and dyes. The measure, now awaiting action by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, would require a warning label prominently displayed on foods containing any of 44 artificial dyes and additives — a mandate that would apply to popular foods from Doritos and Skittles to Toaster Strudels and breads made with bleached flour. It marks the first time a state, rather than the federal government, has tried to put its own warning labels on food. While the bill passed the Texas House and Senate with bipartisan support, its sponsors are eagerly tying it to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' movement. State lawmakers embrace RFK Jr.'s health policies 'This is about the MAHA parents and the crunchy granola parents coming together to say we are sick and tired of being sick and tired,' state Rep. Lacey Hull, who partnered with fellow Republican state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst to sponsor the bill, told legislators before the House voted on May 25. 'I have personally spoken to the White House, who said they are looking to us, to Texas, to get this done, to stand for our children and for our future,' Hull said. Abbott has not yet said whether he will sign the bill. It also includes other statewide health mandates, such as expanding physical activity requirements in public schools and setting new nutrition education requirements for high school and higher education students. But the food warning label has drawn the most attention. The label would read: 'WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.' This is about the MAHA parents and the crunchy granola parents coming together to say we are sick and tired of being sick and tired. – Texas Republican state Rep. Lacey Hull Critics of food dyes and additives say they are most often found in low-nutrient, ultra-processed foods that promote unhealthy eating habits and contribute to chronic diseases like obesity and diabetes. Some artificial dyes that are permitted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in foods are not recommended by its counterparts in other Western countries. European Union regulators require warning labels on some foods containing synthetic dyes, saying they may have an adverse effect on children's activity and attention. In January, the FDA banned the artificial coloring Red No. 3, which is used in many foods and drinks in the U.S. but has been linked to cancer in animals. California became the first state to ban its use in 2023. That bill was sponsored by a Democrat and goes into effect in 2027. But in Texas, the snack industry is pushing back. A coalition of dozens of food industry and business groups — including Walmart, General Mills and Coca-Cola — wrote a letter in opposition to the Texas bill's warning label provision, saying it 'casts an incredibly wide net' and goes too far. 'Problematic' MAHA report minimizes success of lifesaving asthma medicines, doctors say 'Texans deserve honest labeling; but they also deserve public policy that's been studied, vetted, and evaluated for health considerations as well as economic impacts,' the organizations said in a letter circulated around the Texas legislature ahead of the House vote in May. Yet opposition from some of the country's largest food manufacturers may not be enough to halt the MAHA train. The legislation with the labeling requirement joins other Republican-sponsored bills in the Texas legislature and around the country that reflect Kennedy's MAHA agenda, from ending the addition of fluoride to public waters systems to loosening vaccine restrictions. In March, West Virginia became the first state to pass a sweeping ban on synthetic food dyes. At least two dozen other states considered similar food dye bans in this most recent legislative session, according to data from the Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy group that pushes for removal of chemicals from food and consumer products. At the federal level, the FDA under Kennedy's direction has also asked the food industry to phase out certain synthetic dyes by the end of 2026, though some of the largest companies have said the timeline may not be feasible. Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@ SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Abbott signs bill to protect law enforcement from ‘being targeted by rogue prosecutors'
AUSTIN (KXAN) — In a social media post Tuesday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 2570 into law. SB 2570 relates to legal justification for the use of force with a less-lethal force weapon by a correctional facility guard or a peace officer. 'In Texas, our law enforcement officers are on the front lines to keep Texas a law-and-order state. To have their backs, I am signing a law to ensure they can use every tool available to combat criminals without being targeted by rogue prosecutors,' Abbott said as he signed the bill into law. 'In Texas, we support our law enforcement officers.' SB 2570 was first presented in March. The Texas Senate signed the bill May 27, and the Texas House followed suit May 28. It was then sent to Abbott's office. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Alabama law authorizes emergency care and transport for police K9s
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (WHNT) — Alabama is providing more services for Police K9s throughout the state. HB 366, authorizes emergency medical services (EMS) personnel to provide medical care and transportation to police dogs injured in the line of duty. The bill also known as the 'Lakyn Canine Act,' will ensure injured police K9s receive the same emergency medical care and transportation as their human partners. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Rick Rehm (R-Dothan), also allows K9s to be transported by ambulance or helicopter to emergency veterinary care. Additionally, the bill will protect emergency medical personnel from potential liability arising from offering critical medical care in good faith to a police dog. 'Police K9s are more than working dogs; they're loyal partners, fearless protectors and like family,' said Debbie Johnson, president and founder of K9s United. 'They charge into danger without hesitation to protect their communities, and they deserve the same urgent, life-saving care as any human officer. Passing this law is one of our proudest moments, and we are deeply grateful to Governor Ivey and Representative Rehm for standing with us to ensure Alabama's K9 heroes receive the care they've earned through their service and sacrifice.' 'The Laykn Canine Act honors our police K9s and recognizes their vital role in protecting our communities with unwavering loyalty,' said Rep. Rick Rehm. 'By ensuring EMS personnel can provide emergency care without fear of liability, we're closing a dangerous gap and guaranteeing these brave dogs get the same urgent attention any hero deserves. I'm grateful to K9s United for bringing this issue to light, and proud that we've delivered a meaningful solution that ensures we never leave our K9s behind.' The recent enactment of the new law isn't so new, our neighbors in Florida also have a similar bill in place that was signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2021. HB366 in the Alabama legislature was signed into law on May 14, 2025. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
