Don't let Texas criminalize free political speech in the name of AI regulation
Texans aren't exactly shy about speaking their minds — whether it's at city hall, in the town square or all over social media. But a slate of bills now moving through the Texas Legislature threatens to make that proud tradition a criminal offense.
In the name of regulating artificial intelligence, lawmakers are proposing bills that could turn political memes, commentary and satire into crimes.
Senate Bills 893 and 228, and House Bills 366 and 556 might be attempting to protect election integrity, but these bills actually impose sweeping restrictions that could silence ordinary Texans just trying to express their opinions.
Take SB 893 and its companion HB 2795. These would make it a crime to create and share AI-generated images, audio recordings, or videos if done with the intent to 'deceive' and 'influence the result of an election.' The bill offers a limited safeguard: If you want to share any images covered by the bill, you must edit them to add a government-mandated warning label.
But the bills never define what counts as 'deceptive,' handing prosecutors a blank check to decide what speech crosses the line. That's a recipe for selective enforcement and criminalizing unpopular opinions. And SB 893 has already passed the Senate.
HB 366, which just passed the House, goes even further. It would require a disclaimer on any political ad that contains 'altered media,' even when the content isn't misleading. With the provisions applying to anyone spending at least $100 on political advertising, which is easily the amount a person could spend to boost a social media post or to print some flyers, a private citizen could be subject to the law.
Once this threshold is met, an AI-generated meme, a five-second clip on social media, or a goofy Photoshop that gives the opponent a giant cartoon head would all suddenly need a legal warning label. No exceptions for satire, parody or commentary are included. If it didn't happen in real life, you're legally obligated to slap a disclaimer on it.
HB 556 and SB 228 take a similarly broad approach, treating all generative AI as suspect and criminalizing creative political expression.
These proposals aren't just overkill, they're unconstitutional. Courts have long held that parody, satire and even sharp political attacks are protected speech. Requiring Texans to add disclaimers to their opinions simply because they used modern tools to express them is not transparency. It's compelled speech.
Besides, Texas already has laws on the books to address defamation, fraud and election interference. What these bills do is expand government control over how Texans express themselves while turning political expression into a legal minefield.
Fighting deception at the ballot box shouldn't mean criminalizing creativity or chilling free speech online. Texans shouldn't need a lawyer to know whether they can post a meme they made on social media or make a joke about a candidate.
Political life in Texas has been known to be colorful, rowdy and fiercely independent — and that's how it should stay. Vague laws and open-ended definitions shouldn't dictate what Texans can say, how they can say it, or which tools they're allowed to use.
The Texas Legislature should scrap these overbroad AI bills and defend the Lone Star state's real legacy: fearless, unapologetic free speech.
John Coleman is the legislative counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonpartisan nonprofit that defends the free speech rights of all Americans.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Don't use AI regulation to criminalize political speech | Opinion
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration faces growing bipartisan pressure over Job Corps
Nearly 200 House members signed onto a bipartisan letter this week to express support for Job Corps after the Department of Labor recently announced it would soon be pausing operations at centers nationwide. In the letter to Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the lawmakers express support 'for the continuation of the Job Corps program,' while noting it remains funded through government funding legislation that passed earlier this year. 'Nearly 20,000 young people utilize Job Corps to learn skills for in-demand vocational and technical job training,' the letter said. 'Job Corps is one of the few national programs that specifically targets the 16-24-year-old population that is neither working, nor in school, and provides them with a direct pathway into employment openings in industries such as manufacturing and shipbuilding.' Job Corps, established as part of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, is a free residential education and job training program for low-income people between 16 and 24 years of age. In an announcement explaining the Labor Department's decision to suspend operations at Job Corps centers, Chavez-DeRemer said the program was found to no longer achieve 'the intended outcomes that students deserve,' citing what she described as 'a startling number of serious incident reports and our in-depth fiscal analysis.' 'We remain committed to ensuring all participants are supported through this transition and connected with the resources they need to succeed as we evaluate the program's possibilities.' The department said it will begin a 'phased pause' initiating 'an orderly transition for students, staff, and local communities.' The pause will occur by June 30, the office said. The move was met with swift backlash from lawmakers, including Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine), who defended the program in a statement expressing strong opposition to the department's move to pause operations. 'Serving nearly 500 students in Maine, the Loring Job Corps Center and the Penobscot Job Corps Center have become important pillars of support for some of our most disadvantaged young adults,' Collins said at the time. In the new letter sent to the secretary Thursday, the group of lawmakers said by 'filling job openings, Job Corps ensures that young people become productive members of the American workforce.' 'No other program takes homeless youth and turns them into the welders, electricians, shipbuilders, carpenters, nurses, mechanics, and vocational workers of the future,' the letter said. The letter came a day after a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration from suspending operations at Job Corps centers as critics argue the move is illegal. 'The Department of Labor is working closely with the Department of Justice to evaluate and comply with the temporary restraining order,' the agency said in a statement to The Hill on Friday. 'We remain confident that our actions are consistent with the law.' Updated: 12:51 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jeffries declines to embrace Musk amid the billionaire's feud with Trump
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is keeping his distance from Elon Musk even after the billionaire's extraordinary public rebuke of President Trump and the GOP's domestic agenda. Asked Friday if Musk's bitter break from Trump presents Democrats with an opportunity to form a strange-bedfellows alliance with the tech titan, Jeffries shifted the conversation immediately to the Democrats' efforts to kill Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' 'The opportunity that exists right now is to kill the GOP tax scam,' Jeffries told reporters in the Capitol. 'It's legislation that we have been strongly opposed to, and uniformly opposed to, from the very beginning. … It rips health care away from millions of people. It snatches food out of the mouths of hungry children. And it rewards billionaires and [GOP] donors in ways that are fiscally irresponsible.' Pressed on whether Musk should be 'welcomed back' to the Democratic Party after the high-profile split from Trump, Jeffries punted again. 'Same answer,' he said. Jeffries's cautious remarks demonstrate the limits of the old adage that the enemy of one's enemy is one's friend. They also highlight the potential difficulties Democrats would face if they embraced a polarizing and nationally unpopular figure in Musk — one they've spent most of the last year bashing for heavy spending on Trump's campaign and, more recently, for his role in heading Trump's efforts to gut the federal government. Still, some Democrats say Musk's influence is significant enough that Democrats should make the effort to try to court him to their side amid the Trump feud. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who represents parts of Silicon Valley, is leading the charge. 'If Biden had a big supporter criticize him, Trump would have hugged him the next day,' Khanna posted Thursday on social platform X, which is owned by Musk. 'When we refused to meet with @RobertKennedyJr, Trump embraced him & won. We can be the party of sanctimonious lectures, or the party of FDR that knows how to win & build a progressive majority,' referring to former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Jeffries isn't going nearly so far. But he has welcomed Musk's attacks on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' and the Republicans who voted for it. And he aligned Democrats with Musk's sentiments that the package piles too much money onto the federal debt, a figure the Congressional Budget Office estimated to be $2.4 trillion. 'To the extent that Elon Musk has made the same point that everyone who has voted for this bill up until this moment should be ashamed of themselves, we agree,' Jeffries said. 'And to the extent that Elon Musk has made the point that the bill is a 'disgusting abomination,' we agree. And to the extent that Elon Musk has made the observation about the GOP tax scam — that it is reckless and irresponsible to explode the deficit by more than $3 trillion, and that potentially could set our country on a path toward bankruptcy — we agree.' 'These are arguments that Democrats have been making now for months.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - How long can America's colleges and universities survive Trump's ‘chaos tax'?
The House proposed tax on college endowments has drawn considerable attention. Critics have rightly noted that it would effectively tax student scholarships as well as undermine donor intent, and lacks a clear public policy rationale. While this tax targets only the wealthiest institutions, every college and university in the country is paying a different kind of price — what I call a 'chaos tax.' This refers to the unfunded time, energy and expense required to respond to the administration's attacks on higher education, along with its onslaught of confusing policy proposals and demands. That the federal government would so recklessly jeopardize the future of American colleges and universities is mind-boggling. When my organization surveyed and interviewed hundreds of college presidents two years ago, they reported that the issues that mattered the most to them were tied to improving the education offered to students. Among their top priorities: fostering a climate for free expression, strengthening the college-to-career pipeline, and integrating new technologies. This year, college presidents tell us that the bulk of their time is taken up with responding to executive orders, protecting the rights of students, and responding to negative perceptions of higher ed. In both the near past and the present, many were also focused on the financial stability of their institutions. But the current policy climate has made this an even more pressing worry. College presidents now express concern that their institutions face an existential threat. Each time the federal government issues a threat or demand, institutions must pause to parse and interpret it. Each time funding is withheld or a grant is cancelled, institutions have to realign their already stressed budgets and make difficult decisions. Many executive orders have been paused by judges due to their lack of clarity or their lack of alignment with federal law or the Constitution. But whether they stand or fall, the toll on campus leaders — and the students they serve — is intense. If our largest universities are struggling to respond, imagine what this season of attack is doing to the many smaller and leaner institutions. To give just one example, the recent threat to disenroll Harvard's international students — a threat currently on hold thanks to a judicial ruling — has sent shock waves throughout all of higher education. Nationally, more than a million college and university students are from countries outside the U.S. For decades, American colleges and universities have welcomed them, seeing opportunities for enhanced peer-to-peer global learning, a way to keep tuition down for domestic students, and a chance to share the good news about American democracy and freedom to learn. In the wake of unprecedented arrests, sudden cancelling of visas and now the threat of disenrollment, international student applications have dropped dramatically across the board. Current international students are panicked about their future and unsure if they will be able to return after the summer. For many years, American higher education has been the envy of the world and one of our most successful exports. The international students who flock here pay top dollar to receive a world-class education, globally lauded credentials, and a deeper appreciation for the American way of life. In this case, the balance of trade is widely in our favor. The loss of international students means a less effective and robust education for all American students. Without revenue from international students, American students will have to pay more. And international enrollment is but a single target of chaotic orders and policy. With more of their college leadership investing time in navigating the many unforced errors of the current administration, American students will see less time spent on meeting their educational needs and fewer opportunities to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics and other important fields. That the federal government would recklessly endanger the future of so many American colleges and universities is vexing. What are our goals as a nation? Are we looking to create well-paying jobs and enhance American prosperity? Preserve the blessings of a free society? Improve health and life expectancy for more Americans? No country has been able to achieve these aims without significant investment. It is not just the elites that are bearing the burden of this chaos. The local religious college, the small comprehensive university that educates nurses and teachers, community colleges, the land grant public institution, the state branch campus — all of them are vulnerable to the same threatened withdrawal of federal support. Collectively, American higher education is being weakened and hollowed out. Our capacity for scientific innovation is being hobbled. Our pathways out of poverty are being pruned. Our future is being mortgaged. We need to insist on a sensible policy agenda for higher education — one that is preparing the country for the impact of AI and positioning our graduates to serve their communities and lead in their professions. Students, alumni and families who hope for a bright future for their children must join higher ed leaders and insist on an end to the chaos tax. Marjorie Hass, Ph.D., is president of the Council of Independent Colleges, an organization serving more than 600 independent colleges and universities, based in Washington, D.C. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
