Latest news with #HouseBill366
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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. Accessed 2 May 2025. ELECTION CODE CHAPTER 255. REGULATING POLITICAL ADVERTISING AND CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATIONS. Accessed 2 May 2025. " Texas House of Representatives, 30 Apr. 2025, PENAL CODE CHAPTER 12. PUNISHMENTS. 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, POLITICAL ADVERTISING What You Need to Know. Texas Ethics Commission, 16 July 2019, PROCEEDINGS. Texas House of Representatives, 30 Apr. 2025, Solanki, Sneha. "Consideration in Contracts: Elements and Types." Thomson Reuters Law Blog, 13 Dec. 2024, "State Affairs." Texas House of Representatives, 12 Mar. 2025,
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Political ad transparency bill passes Texas House
The Brief House Bill 366 would require disclosure of substantially altered images, audio and videos. The bill would require disclosure by an officeholder, candidate or political committee that used altered media in ads and spends more than $100 on political advertising. Violators would be charged with a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a maximum fine of $4,000. AUSTIN, Texas - The Texas House on Wednesday approved a bill requiring political advertisements to disclose if an image, audio or video recording used was substantially altered. House Bill 366, authored by former House speaker Dade Phelen (R-Beaumont), looks to combat the use of generative artificial intelligence that makes it easier to manipulate media to falsely represent an officeholder's or candidate's appearance, speech, or conduct, and potentially mislead voters. What they're saying "It is my goal to prevent someone from impacting or altering an election by using fake media that never occurred in reality, be it AI or deep fakes," Phelan said. Critics of the bill, however, say the bill will be used to limit political speech. "So we know that this bill is going to be abused to put people in jail for political speech," Rep. Nate Schatzline (R-Fort Worth) said. "Is it your intent to limit grassroots organizations from criticizing their elected officials?" The bill excludes broadcasters, companies, commercial sign owners, computer services and internet service providers from liability. "This is the beginning of a new era in ethics where the voters need to know what is real and what is not," Phelan said. "This AI technology gets better every single day. It gets more inexpensive every single day, it's going to become the norm." Phelan said the use of AI in campaigns was leading voters to question if real endorsements were actually real, like when his primary opponent was endorsed by President Donald Trump. "They did not believe it was real, because there's so much out there that's not real," Phelan said. The bill would require disclosure by an officeholder, candidate or political committee that used altered media in ads and spends more than $100 on political advertising. The Texas Ethics Commission would determine what the disclosure form would look like, including font, size and color. Violators would be charged with a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a maximum fine of $4,000. What's next Phelan's bill passed out of the house by a vote of 102-40. It will go to the Senate, where its future is unknown. The Source Information on House Bill 366 comes from the Texas Legislature. Comments made during Wednesday's House session came from the Texas House of Representatives.
