Latest news with #JohnAlbers
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Medical cannabis access, ‘fair' tax policies and more on deck as study committee season cranks up
Lawmakers created a long list of study committees during the 2025 legislative session, laying the groundwork for a busy offseason. Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder School may be out for the summer, but at the state Capitol in Atlanta, lawmakers are gearing up for their own version of summer school. Study committees, which meet outside the regular 40-day legislative session, have already begun gathering information and soliciting expert testimony on topics ranging from chronic student absenteeism to improving tourism. All told, 16 different House study committees and 20 Senate panels will convene under the Gold Dome, which is the most each chamber has seen in the past decade. Here is a look at a few notable ones. Artificial intelligence, or AI, has been a hot-button issue both in Georgia and around the country. During the 2025 session, legislators in both chambers introduced bills aimed at increasing regulations on the use of AI technology, but none managed to pass through both chambers by the Sine Die deadline. However, two new study committees will allow legislators in the Senate to continue compiling research and drafting a report that may guide their efforts when lawmakers reconvene for the 2026 session next January. Senate Resolution 391, introduced by Roswell Republican Sen. John Albers, creates a new committee dedicated to examining the use of AI across industries like education, health care and financial services. The committee will also explore the use of digital and cryptocurrency, and how to better prevent security threats. A second AI-related committee, created by SR 431, will study the impact of social media on children across Georgia, examining privacy implications and the impact of chatbots and other AI features on minors. The resolution was introduced by Atlanta Democrat Sen. Sally Harrell, who will serve as co-chair alongside Johns Creek Republican Sen. Shawn Still. Lawmakers are getting a jump start on election policy this year, perhaps hoping to avoid a repeat of the months-long battle between Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and the five-member State Election Board that characterized the lead-up to Georgia's 2024 election. House Resolution 885 established a special panel that will examine Georgia's existing election code and how responsibilities are shared between election officials at the local and state levels. It will be chaired by Rep. Tim Fleming, a Covington Republican. Another study committee, created by SR 429, will research ways to remove barriers for those who are seeking to restore their voting rights after a felony conviction. Georgia 'has one of the longest parole and probationary periods in the nation and the highest number of individuals under supervision per capita of any state,' according to the resolution. The fight to overhaul Georgia's civil litigation landscape may be settled for now, but discussions over Georgia's insurance rates are set to continue. A newly created panel will investigate the driving forces behind insurance rate hikes throughout the state by analyzing insurance industry practices, profit margins and compliance with state regulations. It will be chaired by Duluth Republican Rep. Matt Reeves. House lawmakers will also delve into how the state's reinsurance landscape intersects with climate change in a study committee created by HR 40. Citing the estimated $6.46 billion in damage that Hurricane Helene caused in Georgia, lawmakers are hoping to combat insurance-related challenges that businesses may face during future storms and severe weather events. Co-chaired by Republican Reps. Darlene Taylor of Thomasville and Noel Williams of Cordele, the committee aims to collaborate with the Georgia Office of Insurance and Department of Agriculture to mitigate rising property and casualty insurance costs for small businesses across the state. Cannabis consumption, both medical and recreational, was another prominent issue that surfaced during the 2025 legislative session. While House Bill 227 and Senate Bill 220 both sought to widen access to medical cannabis, neither bill managed to make it over the finish line before lawmakers adjourned for the year. Instead, two separate study committees will tackle the issue over the summer. A House study committee led by Augusta Republican Rep. Mark Newton, who works as a doctor, will dive into Georgia's medical marijuana policies. In the Senate, lawmakers on the Study Committee on Intoxicating Cannabinoids in Consumable Hemp Products will tackle the issue of regulating recreational products like THC-infused drinks, which are chemically similar to medical cannabis but more broadly available to consumers because they fall under the federal 2018 Farm Bill and the Georgia Hemp Farming Act. Georgia lawmakers at both the state and federal level are pushing for legislation that would overhaul the current tax code, replacing the current system with a fixed consumption tax that proponents refer to as 'FairTax.' The congressional version of the bill, which was first proposed in 1999, was sponsored this year by U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter, who recently announced a bid for the U.S. Senate. At the Georgia Capitol, the Senate State FairTax Study Committee will examine similar legislation that would apply a fixed sales tax rate within the Peach State. The committee will be chaired by Rome Republican Sen. Chuck Hufstetler, who also heads the Senate Finance Committee. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Georgia House passes bill to criminalize using AI-generated political ads intended to deceive
The Georgia House passed a bill intended to protect residents from AI-aided political deception. Image created by Midjourney AI A bill aimed at reducing misleading AI-generated political ads passed the state House with a bipartisan 152-12 vote Thursday. Under Senate Bill 9, originally authored by Roswell Republican Sen. John Albers, it would be a crime for political campaigns to knowingly publish certain audio or AI-made materials within 90 days of an election. To be caught under the law, the material would have to be posted with the intention of significantly influencing a candidate's chance of being elected, creating confusion about the election or otherwise influencing the result. Including a disclaimer on the advertisement would protect a candidate who posted an ad that would otherwise violate the law. A first offense would be a misdemeanor, and a second offense would be a felony, carrying a potential sentence of two to five years in prison and a fine of up to $50,000. The legislation originally created punishments for creating obscene images of children using AI but was amended in a House committee to deal with fraudulent election materials. Language aimed at obscene AI materials still survives in House Bill 171, which passed the House and is awaiting a Senate vote. Holly Springs Republican Rep. Brad Thomas, the House sponsor of the bill, argued that the bill is narrowly tailored to catch purposely deceptive speech and contains a carveout for constitutionally protected speech including satire, parody, works of art and journalism. 'I want to make it clear, First Amendment-protected speech, such as satire and parody, as listed on line 56 – aka memes – are explicitly written as not applying to this bill,' Thomas said. Dunwoody Democratic Rep. Long Tran said bad actors are already using cutting-edge tech to deceptively influence elections, referencing a bit of infamous audio from last year's election. 'Just a year ago, we saw in New Hampshire, during the New Hampshire presidential primary, a voice robocall went out to Democratic voters that imitated President Joe Biden's voice and told Democratic voters not to call out and vote,' he said. 'And that is the danger that AI poses today.' A similar bill passed the House last year but fell short in the Senate over free speech concerns. Thomas said he worked since the 2024 legislative session to shore up any of those concerns, but not every legislator felt assured. 'This isn't freedom, it's Soviet-style control,' said Woodstock Republican Rep. Charlice Byrd. 'SB 9 could jail you for so-called deception, exposing corruption on felony charges up to five years. We already have deception laws for lies that harm. This is silencing dissent, plain and simple. If it passes, Georgia becomes like California, dissenters in handcuffs.' The 12 lawmakers opposed to the bill included members of both parties. Lilburn Democratic Rep. Jasmine Clark, who voted against the bill, said she thinks it should go further than the 90-day window before an election. 'My concern would be if a campaign that is very well-funded has 300 days – or whatever 365 minus 90 is, I don't feel like doing math – they have that many days to make deceptive materials about you, and then there's just a 90-day moratorium,' she said. 'How do you undo that damage? Because it was amended, the bill will need to return to the Senate for a final vote before it can land on Gov. Brian Kemp's desk. The deadline for that to happen is April 4, the last day of the 2025 legislative session. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill criminalizing ‘doxxing' in Georgia advances in spite of free speech concerns
Sen. John Albers, a Roswell Republican, makes the case for making doxxing a crime in Georgia at a committee meeting Tuesday. Jill Nolin/Georgia Recorder An attempt to crack down on so-called doxxing has been met with concerns from attorneys and First Amendment advocates who say the proposal is too broad and would hamper free speech. Senate Bill 27, which is sponsored by Sen. John Albers, a Roswell Republican, would make it a crime to distribute someone's personal information – such as their home address – in a way that could cause more than $500 in economic losses or leave the victim scared of being stalked or hurt. 'It's really a contemporary and pernicious form of harassment just using the power of the internet,' Albers said. 'It's a gross violation of people's privacy, often resulting in emotional distress, reputational damages, and in some cases, it has resulted in physical harm and death. 'While we can continue to digitize our lives, we have to address this issue,' he said. The first offense would be a misdemeanor, but repeat offenders would be charged with a felony. More serious cases where the offender intends to cause harm could result in a felony that could land someone in prison for up to five years. 'I want to make sure we understand there's absolutely no curbing any free speech,' Albers said, pointing to exceptions included in the bill. But critics of the bill were not convinced. The Georgia First Amendment Foundation and individual attorneys spoke out against the bill during a House committee hearing Tuesday. Sarah Brewerton-Palmer, the foundation's president, said the doxxing issue is legitimate and needs to be addressed. But she argued that the proposal being considered is overly broad, particularly with the lower-level offense that includes situations where the offender demonstrated reckless disregard. If passed, she said the bill would have a chilling effect on First Amendment protected speech – and could even ensnare journalists. 'We appreciate that threats and harassment, particularly those enabled by the anonymity of social media, are real and serious concerns in Georgia and throughout society,' Brewerton-Palmer wrote in a letter she delivered to lawmakers Tuesday. 'However, Senate Bill 27 presents little realistic likelihood of remedying those ills, while exposing innocent speakers and writers to arrest and prosecution that could be triggered by nothing more than publishing an already-prominent person's name,' she said. Brewerton-Palmer and others have said the bill could be applied to an unfavorable Yelp review, such as one urging people to avoid a specific physician because they have had their license suspended numerous times. Andrew Fleischman, who is an attorney, presented a timely national example of what he argued could be considered doxxing under the proposal: An explosive report from The Atlantic's editor that said he had been accidentally included in a text exchange with Trump administration Cabinet members about plans to bomb Yemen. 'A reporter was part of a text thread about national security, and in that conversation you learned who those people's employers were and also where they'd be likely to be, and you know what? I think there's a pretty good chance that those people will suffer mental anguish or economic harm,' he said. Fleischman argued that existing laws can be used to go after people who are doxxing others in Georgia. The bill advanced out of committee Tuesday night with a few dissenting votes from both parties and now goes to the gatekeeping House Rules Committee. April 4 is the last day of this year's legislative session. After the vote, Fleischman posted this on X: 'It looks like this bill is going to pass. If you, or anyone you know, is charged with a violation of this law, call me. I will work for cheap or for free to overturn it.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Georgia's 'anti-doxxing' legislation upsets the balance between free speech and privacy
Guest commentary warns Senate Bill 27, sponsored by Sen. John Albers (right) and pushed by Sen. Randy Robertson could criminalize sharing identifying information about someone that is already public. Stanley Dunlap/Georgia Recorder (File) No one – whether they are a private figure or a public official – wants to be harassed online with their private information paraded about for others to use to target them or their family members. For instance, Eliud Bonilla, an American citizen, was temporarily removed from the voter rolls in Virginia due to a clerical error. Even though his voter registration was restored, a watchdog group published his personal information online, suggesting that he was a 'noncitizen voter' who had committed voter fraud, causing him to fear for his safety. This sort of thing shouldn't happen. Unfortunately, the legislative fix that the Georgia General Assembly is working on – Senate Bill 27 – isn't threading the needle quite right. In its current form, it would prohibit large amounts of truthful speech while still not effectively safeguarding people's personal information. Moreover, SB 27 would largely duplicate already existing laws that criminalize much of the conduct the bill seeks to prevent. The legislation makes it a crime to electronically post or transmit another person's identifying information, including their name or where they work, if that information is 'reasonably likely' to be used by another party to cause the identified person 'reasonable fear' of physical injury, significant economic injury, or mental anguish. There are several concerns with this expansive definition of criminal liability. First, it outlaws sharing identifying information that is already public. These days, people publicly post information about themselves online all the time, whether it's photos on Instagram or their employment history on LinkedIn. Yet, another person who shares this already-public information could still be criminally charged under SB 27 if a third party uses it to harass or intimidate the identified party. This leads to a second problem with the bill: It requires a person sharing identifying information about another to predict what a third party is 'reasonably likely' to do with it. For instance, someone who posts a critical comment in a Facebook group about a local official that includes the official's name and where they work, may find themselves arrested under SB 27 if another person in the group (whom the poster is unaware of) then sends violent hate mail to the official. SB 27 also contains no requirement that the third party's malicious use of the identifying information occur close to the time when the poster shared it. So, even if the hate mail was sent months after the post was made, the poster could still be charged. The uncertainty of trying to forecast the future actions of unknown third parties will leave would-be critics no choice but to stay silent if they want to avoid criminal liability under SB 27. A third problem with the bill is that it does not require actual injury to result from the posting of identifying information. It only requires that the information be used in a manner that would cause the identified person to have 'reasonable fear' of stalking or physical harm, or to experience significant economic harm or emotional distress. This adds yet another layer of unpredictability about what can lawfully be shared because of the subjective nature of what amounts to grounds for 'reasonable fear.' Taken together, SB 27's defects make it nearly impossible for would-be speakers to distinguish what information about another person can be electronically transmitted versus what could land them in jail. This will chill far more speech than the drafters of the bill likely meant to deter. As the United States Supreme Court has long recognized, laws with uncertain meanings as to what speech is prohibited 'inevitably lead citizens to steer far wider of the unlawful zone . . . than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked.' To be sure, SB 27 requires that the person transmitting the personally identifying information do so with 'reckless disregard' for how others might use the information, but that provides no safe harbor from criminal prosecution. 'Reckless disregard' can easily be alleged, even if it cannot ultimately be proven. Similarly, the bill contains a 'constitutional savings clause' that says it's not a crime if you post the information in furtherance of constitutionally protected activity. But, this is only an affirmative defense the poster will still have to prove. People will choose not to exercise their First Amendment right to speak, rather than risk fighting a criminal prosecution. Finally, SB 27 is largely duplicative of other Georgia laws that already prohibit the same conduct the bill seeks to deter. For instance, Georgia common law already recognizes the tort of publication of private facts. Georgia Code § 16-11-39.1 classifies harassing as any form of electronic communication being used to harm others. And Georgia Code § 16-11-37 punishes an individual who makes a threat of violent crime toward others. With such laws already on the books, SB 27 would be detrimental to First Amendment rights without actually providing significant additional protections to potential crime victims. The best course of action would be for the Georgia Legislature to reject SB 27. Short of that, the bill should be narrowed to restrict only the posting of identifying information that is not otherwise publicly available (e.g., bank account, Social Security, or unpublished cellphone numbers); require that the poster intentionally share the information for the sole purpose of causing violence or harassment toward the individual identified; and require that the sharing of the information cause actual harm (either physical, emotional or financial) to the identified person. Georgia lawmakers should take a critical look at SB 27 and either set it aside or significantly narrow it. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
