The bill that would let Jimmy Kimmel sue Brendan Carr is here
The bill that would let Jimmy Kimmel sue Brendan Carr is here
一项可能让吉米·坎摩尔起诉布伦丹·卡尔的法案出炉了
The JAWBONE Act would also require public disclosures of government correspondence with social media companies. 《JAWBONE法案》还将要求公开政府与社交媒体公司之间的通信记录。
Under a new bipartisan bill, Americans could sue for damages if a government official illegally tries to coerce a social media, AI, or broadcasting company to remove their post — regardless of whether the platform actually does it. 根据一项新的两党法案，如果政府官员非法试图胁迫社交媒体、人工智能或广播公司删除某人的帖子，无论该平台是否真的删除了内容，美国公民都可以起诉并要求赔偿。
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the JAWBONE Act on Thursday, which, in addition to letting individuals sue for these kinds of damages, would create new transparency requirements for government communications with social media, AI, and broadcast companies. 参议院商业委员会主席泰德·克鲁兹（共和党，得克萨斯州）和参议员罗恩·怀登（民主党，俄勒冈州）于周四提出了《JAWBONE法案》。除了允许个人就此类损害进行起诉外，该法案还将为政府与社交媒体、人工智能及广播公司之间的沟通建立新的透明度要求。
That could empower someone like Jimmy Kimmel to sue Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, who threatened TV stations’ broadcast licenses after the comedian made a joke Carr disliked in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s killing. (Carr has denied the comments were threats.) It could also empower lesser-known social media users whose posts about medical misinformation or criticism of Kirk were removed or targeted, if they believe it was due to government coercion. 这可能使像吉米·坎摩尔（Jimmy Kimmel）这样的人有权起诉联邦通信委员会（FCC）主席布伦丹·卡尔（Brendan Carr）。此前，在查理·柯克（Charlie Kirk）遇害事件后，坎摩尔开了一个卡尔不喜欢的玩笑，随后卡尔威胁要吊销电视台的广播执照。（卡尔否认这些言论是威胁。）如果不太知名的社交媒体用户认为其关于医疗误导信息或批评柯克的帖子因政府胁迫而被删除或针对，该法案也可能赋予他们起诉的权利。
Cruz first teased the bill in the aftermath of Carr’s comments about Kimmel, which the senator characterized as “right out of Goodfellas.” But he’s said he’s worked on the bill since before that incident, and has repeatedly criticized Biden administration officials’ messages to social media companies about medical misinformation during the pandemic, which became the subject of a Supreme Court case. (The Supreme Court determined plaintiffs had no grounds to bring the lawsuit, and its ruling found a lack of clear evidence that platforms were moderating based on government coercion.) 克鲁兹在卡尔针对坎摩尔发表评论后首次透露了该法案，参议员称这些评论“简直就像《好家伙》里的情节”。但他表示，他在该事件发生前就已经在起草这项法案，并多次批评拜登政府官员在疫情期间就医疗误导信息向社交媒体公司发送的消息，这些消息后来成为最高法院案件的主题。（最高法院裁定原告没有理由提起诉讼，其裁决认为缺乏明确证据表明平台是基于政府胁迫进行内容审核的。）
The bipartisan sponsorship and a pool of supporters that includes the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), and Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, could lend credence to the bill. Cruz and Wyden’s statements each point fingers at the opposite party’s administration for allegedly engaging in the actions they seek to crack down on. 两党的共同提案以及包括美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）、个人权利与表达基金会（FIRE）和哥伦比亚大学奈特第一修正案研究所在内的支持者群体，可能会增加该法案的可信度。克鲁兹和怀登的声明分别指责对方党派的政府涉嫌参与他们试图打击的行为。
“The Biden administration weaponized the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to pressure Big Tech into ‘canceling’ Americans who spoke out against vaccine mandates and election fraud,” Cruz charged. “The most blatant example is Trump threatening cable companies because he doesn’t like their late-night shows, but jawboning isn’t partisan, and it isn’t new,” Wyden said. If passed, the bill could make such incidents the subject of costly legal battles, on top of bitter political fights. “拜登政府将网络安全和基础设施安全局（CISA）武器化，向大型科技公司施压，要求其‘封杀’那些反对疫苗强制令和选举舞弊的美国人，”克鲁兹指责道。“最明显的例子是特朗普因为不喜欢深夜脱口秀节目而威胁有线电视公司，但这种‘劝说式胁迫’（jawboning）并非党派行为，也不是什么新鲜事，”怀登说道。如果该法案获得通过，除了激烈的政治斗争外，此类事件还可能成为代价高昂的法律诉讼的对象。