Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Vermont committee debates constitutionality, enforcement of bill requiring disclosures for synthetic election media
Summary
Lawmakers and legal advisers questioned whether S.23draft 2.1, which would require disclosures on deceptive or synthetic media used around elections, is narrowly tailored enough to survive First Amendment review and sought clearer enforcement language to allow civil investigation and confidentiality.
Members of the Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee on May 7 debated whether S.23 draft 2.1, a bill that would require disclosures for deceptive or synthetic media used in elections, is constitutional and how it should be enforced.
The committee heard legal analysis and enforcement advice from outside counsel and the Attorney General's Office that the bill, as written, likely raises First Amendment concerns and needs clearer civil investigatory tools and confidentiality protections. "This bill is restricting speech," said Rick Segal, counsel with the Office of Williamson, as he reviewed court rulings in California, Texas and Minnesota that challenged similar statutes.
The question of narrow tailoring dominated the discussion. Segal summarized federal litigation trends, citing Coles v. Bonta and recent Texas and Minnesota rulings, and warned that broad definitions that capture routine…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
