Maryland “Election Misinformation” Bill Threatens Free Speech, Satire, and Parody (Opinion)

This will be the second time I’ve written about this bill, and I felt it was worth going a bit more in depth this time. In a bid to address the dissemination of election misinformation and disinformation, Maryland House Bill 333, introduced by Delegates Rosenberg, Wilkins, Wims, Vogel, Wu, Atterbeary, Ebersole, and Young, outlines measures to establish oversight and corrective mechanisms. Signed into law by Governor Moore on April 25, 2024, the bill aims to enhance the integrity of the electoral process within the state. But this broad, overreaching bill threatens freedom of speech, especially satire and parody.

Central to the legislation is the requirement for the State Board of Elections to maintain a publicly accessible portal on its website. This portal serves as a platform for individuals to report instances of election misinformation and disinformation. The State Board is tasked with conducting periodic reviews of the materials submitted through the portal. Where necessary, corrective information will be issued, or submissions may be referred to the State Prosecutor for further action.

The bill provides definitions for “election misinformation” and “election disinformation.” Election misinformation refers to incorrect or misleading information regarding the time, place, or manner of an election, election results, or voting rights in the state. Election disinformation, on the other hand, involves knowingly and deliberately disseminating false or misleading information pertaining to elections.

Additionally, the legislation addresses improper influence related to voting. It defines “influence” as encompassing various tactics such as pressure, deception, trickery, or the use of direct or indirect authority to induce action or alter the decisions of others. The bill prohibits several actions, including voter impersonation, multiple voting attempts, influencing voters through coercion or bribery, and engaging in conduct that denies or restricts any citizen’s right to vote based on race, color, or disability.

Violation of the provisions outlined in the bill constitutes a misdemeanor, subjecting offenders to fines of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for a maximum of five years, or both, as specified in the legislation. Moreover, offenders may also be subject to additional legal consequences as prescribed by existing statutes.

The effective date of the bill is set for June 1, 2024, marking the commencement of its implementation across the state.

As Maryland House Bill 333 comes into effect, concerns have arisen regarding its potential impact on satirical and parody content, raising questions about its alignment with First Amendment rights and its potential chilling effect on free speech. It also bears similarity to the case of Douglass Mackey, currently in Federal appeals court.

In 2016 Mackey created several satirical memes on Twitter encouraging Hillary Clinton supporters to “vote by text message.” The case of Mackey, known as “Ricky Vaughn,” who was convicted for disseminating disinformation about voting methods during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, underscores the complexities of addressing misinformation in the electoral process. Mackey’s conviction under federal law for spreading false voting instructions via memes on social media raises concerns about the intersection of free speech and election integrity. As Maryland prepares to implement House Bill 333, aimed at combating election misinformation and disinformation, Mackey’s case serves as a cautionary tale about the challenges of balancing First Amendment rights with the need to safeguard the electoral process.

Satirical and parody content, which often employs exaggeration and humor to make political commentary, could inadvertently fall under the purview of the law. For instance, satirical pieces such as have been previously posted on The Hagerstown Report suggesting that undocumented immigrants have the right to vote in presidential elections or claiming that election outcomes are predetermined by voting machines could be flagged as election misinformation or disinformation.

The inclusion of such content under the umbrella of election misinformation raises concerns about potential First Amendment violations. The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and expression, including satire and parody, which play a vital role in political discourse and social commentary. Targeting satirical creators under the law could stifle creative expression and limit the public’s access to diverse perspectives on political issues. But then, maybe that’s the point of the legislation.

Furthermore, the legislation’s reliance on the State Board of Elections to determine what constitutes misinformation or disinformation raises questions about government overreach and the potential for subjective interpretation. Granting the government the authority to decide what qualifies as misinformation could have a chilling effect on legitimate reporting of electoral malfeasance or corruption. Journalists and whistleblowers may hesitate to report on genuine concerns for fear of being prosecuted or labeled as spreading misinformation.

HB333 directly affects me, as I am a satire and parody creator, as well as a news reporter. And I’m honestly worried, because it will only take one person in the government not understanding what satire or parody is for me to end up having to defend myself in court for constitutionally protected speech.

While the intention behind Maryland House Bill 333 is to safeguard the integrity of elections and combat deliberate attempts to mislead voters, its broad language and potential for misapplication raise legitimate concerns about its impact on free speech and the press. Balancing the need to address misinformation with the protection of First Amendment rights will be essential as the law is implemented and enforced.

Advocates for free speech and press freedom should call for careful consideration of the unintended consequences of the legislation and emphasize the importance of preserving the rights enshrined in the First Amendment. Striking a balance between combating misinformation and upholding constitutional freedoms will be crucial to ensuring the law’s effectiveness without unduly infringing on individual liberties.

Opinion article by Ken Buckler, President of RFHC and red-pilled yay-hoo. All opinions are his own, and do not reflect those of our clients or sponsors.