KOSA: A Nationwide Anti-Trans/LGBTQ+ Bill in All but Name - Julia Serano
October 7, 2023 11:54 AM Subscribe
This is it. Maximum devastation with minimum controversy. If this law had existed in 1995, me, Julia and countless others would have just quietly disappeared, most likely into an early grave, for mysterious dramatic young-people reasons.
posted by tigrrrlily at 12:41 PM on October 7, 2023 [12 favorites]
posted by tigrrrlily at 12:41 PM on October 7, 2023 [12 favorites]
what a fucking day. I'm so sorry for all the (many many) people who are going to be harmed by this.
posted by supermedusa at 1:01 PM on October 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by supermedusa at 1:01 PM on October 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
This is such a bad idea:
the language regarding what constitutes “harm” is written in an extremely broad way, applying to anything that might impact “anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and suicidal behaviors” in minors.
And who gets to decide whether minors are being negatively impacted in these ways? State attorneys general.
posted by doctornemo at 1:20 PM on October 7, 2023 [7 favorites]
the language regarding what constitutes “harm” is written in an extremely broad way, applying to anything that might impact “anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and suicidal behaviors” in minors.
And who gets to decide whether minors are being negatively impacted in these ways? State attorneys general.
posted by doctornemo at 1:20 PM on October 7, 2023 [7 favorites]
I wish I had faith that the Democrats who are co-sponsoring this monstrosity will eventually do the right thing, but then I see what the brainworms have done to Labour in the UK, the almost complete lack of concern of the effects of SESTA/FOSTA, repeated cries from Dem leadership not to fight the culture war, and the disturbingly high representation of transphobes among the liberal and so-called "moderate" punditry.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 1:31 PM on October 7, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 1:31 PM on October 7, 2023 [3 favorites]
Has Warren said anything about what she sees in this, exactly?
posted by Selena777 at 1:38 PM on October 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 1:38 PM on October 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
I have written to my representatives in the House and Senate, encouraging them to reject this harmful, misguided legislation. I also wrote to Elizabeth Warren; although I am not one of her constituents, I have been a fan for a while, and was greatly disappointed to learn of her co-sponsoring this bill.
I shared this story with everyone I wrote to, but I grew up in an extremely conservative Fundamentalist Christian family. As a queer kid, I went through... a lot reconciling my emerging feelings with what I'd been taught by my family and by the church. It is only because I found an online community of similar people sharing similar struggles that I am even still alive today. Limiting access to information and to community is never a good thing.
posted by xedrik at 1:39 PM on October 7, 2023 [12 favorites]
I shared this story with everyone I wrote to, but I grew up in an extremely conservative Fundamentalist Christian family. As a queer kid, I went through... a lot reconciling my emerging feelings with what I'd been taught by my family and by the church. It is only because I found an online community of similar people sharing similar struggles that I am even still alive today. Limiting access to information and to community is never a good thing.
posted by xedrik at 1:39 PM on October 7, 2023 [12 favorites]
Also if some Republican GA were to add Metafilter to the list of sites they wanted to kill with this bill they could probably just go ahead and do it. There’s no restrictions.
posted by Artw at 2:53 PM on October 7, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 2:53 PM on October 7, 2023 [3 favorites]
Neither if my senators are co-sponsors and hopefully writing to them that I am against this will help. I doubt my House rep would ever vote for this, but wrote her, too.
So many people I knew growing up would have been harmed by these hateful bullies who just seem to want trans and gay people dead. Putting this kind of dangerously broad power in the hands of clowns like Ken Paxton is ridiculous and harmful. And that’s even before addressing censorship!
posted by Captaintripps at 2:55 PM on October 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
So many people I knew growing up would have been harmed by these hateful bullies who just seem to want trans and gay people dead. Putting this kind of dangerously broad power in the hands of clowns like Ken Paxton is ridiculous and harmful. And that’s even before addressing censorship!
posted by Captaintripps at 2:55 PM on October 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
if some Republican GA were to add Metafilter to the list
It's easy, just don't let people like me openly participate and you have nothing to worry about.
posted by tigrrrlily at 3:01 PM on October 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
It's easy, just don't let people like me openly participate and you have nothing to worry about.
posted by tigrrrlily at 3:01 PM on October 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
Since I began raising awareness about KOSA, the most common question I’ve received is “so why are Democrats on board with this?” Well, they weren’t initially. In November 2022, 90+ LGBTQ and human rights organizations signed a letter opposing an earlier draft of KOSA — this effectively killed the bill. But then (according to what I’ve heard from reliable sources), Senator Richard Blumenthal (the Democratic co-sponsor of KOSA, who has long wanted to pass a “protecting kids from the internet” law) convinced a small handful of national LGBTQ+ organizations to switch their position from “opposed” to “neutral.” Then he told his colleagues that he had gotten major LGBTQ+ orgs on board with the bill, even though they did not support it and far more LGBTQ+ orgs continue to oppose it.
Given this, it is quite likely that Democratic congresspeople who currently support KOSA may change their position once they realize that most LGBTQ and human rights organizations still oppose the bill — especially if they hear so from their own constituents!
It sounds like this bill is not at all a sure thing. Sounds like Blumenthal isn't a good ally. I doubt it will pass the senate of all places without us hearing a lot more about it.
And then after that - how would "harm to children" be litigated here? Could this also be used to sue web sites for white supremacy, guns, and homophibia? I mean, if a progressive AG actually wanted to pursue that?
posted by rebent at 3:53 PM on October 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
Given this, it is quite likely that Democratic congresspeople who currently support KOSA may change their position once they realize that most LGBTQ and human rights organizations still oppose the bill — especially if they hear so from their own constituents!
It sounds like this bill is not at all a sure thing. Sounds like Blumenthal isn't a good ally. I doubt it will pass the senate of all places without us hearing a lot more about it.
And then after that - how would "harm to children" be litigated here? Could this also be used to sue web sites for white supremacy, guns, and homophibia? I mean, if a progressive AG actually wanted to pursue that?
posted by rebent at 3:53 PM on October 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
rebent - I think we have sufficient body of historical evidence, as well as the evidence of current systematic book-ban efforts, to know exact how it’s going to be used and there’s no way it’s going to be used that way.
posted by Artw at 4:14 PM on October 7, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by Artw at 4:14 PM on October 7, 2023 [9 favorites]
Also, again, SESTA/FOSTA was obvious garbage that targeted a vulnerable community while doing nothing good and THAT passed, and nobody who helped that pass (current Vice President included) is the slightest bit sorry about having done that.
posted by Artw at 4:17 PM on October 7, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 4:17 PM on October 7, 2023 [4 favorites]
I recently heard an interview with Blumenthal, and while I have not read the Bill in question, it does seem like some of the fear about it is based on earlier versions of the Bill or misunderstandings. You can listen or read the full transcript here, but I'll paste a few key parts below.
Lizzie O’Leary: The Kids Online Safety Act empowers state attorneys general to file lawsuits based on content that they believe will be harmful to young people. Can you help me understand why the legislation is structured in that way? Why does it give so much latitude to state attorneys general?
Sen. Richard Blumenthal: Let me first draw a distinction because you’ve said that the bill empowers state attorneys general to go to court based on content. It does not. This bill does not give state attorneys general—or the Federal Trade Commission, for that matter—the power to censor in any way. What it does is target the product designs, the algorithms that drive that content at kids.
That distinction is very important because what we’re doing here is creating a duty of care that makes the social media platforms accountable for the harms they’ve caused. But it gives attorneys general and the FTC the power to bring lawsuits based on the product designs that, in effect, drive eating disorders, bullying, suicide, and sex and drug abuse that kids haven’t requested and that can be addictive.
So, if I understand him correctly, the Bill is not allowing the blocking or censoring of any content, even harmful content. If a kid searches something like "how to lose weight" they will still get relevant results, but the fact that they searched that won't be allowed to make their algorithm get taken over by disordered eating content (or even dieting advice).
Second, later on:
Let’s spin forward a year. If you start to see lawsuits in Missouri, Texas, Florida based on the concerns [LGBT discrimination in red states] that I’ve outlined, what will you do?
As an attorney general for 20 years, I know very well that the language of the bill, the provisions, is what courts have to apply. Attorneys general may misuse a bill, but ultimately, they have to face a judge, and the language of this bill has been tightened. It targets specific harms: eating disorders, bullying, suicide. It does not target or censor content that is sought by the individual. So, if an attorney general misuses this language, it would be tossed out by a court, and if not by the trial court, then by an appeals court. If we have in some way overlooked the need to tighten it further, we can take action.
I am not a lawyer nor have read the bill, but it sounds like if red states used this law to discriminate against LGBT kids, it wouldn't hold up in court. I'd be curious if any of the lawyers of Metafilter have read it and have any thoughts.
posted by coffeecat at 5:24 PM on October 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
Lizzie O’Leary: The Kids Online Safety Act empowers state attorneys general to file lawsuits based on content that they believe will be harmful to young people. Can you help me understand why the legislation is structured in that way? Why does it give so much latitude to state attorneys general?
Sen. Richard Blumenthal: Let me first draw a distinction because you’ve said that the bill empowers state attorneys general to go to court based on content. It does not. This bill does not give state attorneys general—or the Federal Trade Commission, for that matter—the power to censor in any way. What it does is target the product designs, the algorithms that drive that content at kids.
That distinction is very important because what we’re doing here is creating a duty of care that makes the social media platforms accountable for the harms they’ve caused. But it gives attorneys general and the FTC the power to bring lawsuits based on the product designs that, in effect, drive eating disorders, bullying, suicide, and sex and drug abuse that kids haven’t requested and that can be addictive.
So, if I understand him correctly, the Bill is not allowing the blocking or censoring of any content, even harmful content. If a kid searches something like "how to lose weight" they will still get relevant results, but the fact that they searched that won't be allowed to make their algorithm get taken over by disordered eating content (or even dieting advice).
Second, later on:
Let’s spin forward a year. If you start to see lawsuits in Missouri, Texas, Florida based on the concerns [LGBT discrimination in red states] that I’ve outlined, what will you do?
As an attorney general for 20 years, I know very well that the language of the bill, the provisions, is what courts have to apply. Attorneys general may misuse a bill, but ultimately, they have to face a judge, and the language of this bill has been tightened. It targets specific harms: eating disorders, bullying, suicide. It does not target or censor content that is sought by the individual. So, if an attorney general misuses this language, it would be tossed out by a court, and if not by the trial court, then by an appeals court. If we have in some way overlooked the need to tighten it further, we can take action.
I am not a lawyer nor have read the bill, but it sounds like if red states used this law to discriminate against LGBT kids, it wouldn't hold up in court. I'd be curious if any of the lawyers of Metafilter have read it and have any thoughts.
posted by coffeecat at 5:24 PM on October 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
Cool, we'll just have to pass it and let Republican AGs go absolutely nuts purging queer people from the internet for a few years while this winds through the courts and then, as we stand in the ashes of an internet queer people were allowed to exist on, maybe, possibly, if we're lucky, the courts will clarify that none of that was allowed. In the meantime the damage done will have been incalculable and irreversible, everybody who operates a website will have come to understand that queer people existing on their websites is a risk to their livelihood, a bunch of resources will have been driven offline, and online spaces for queer people will have been smashed and driven offline. But hey, none of that will turn out to have been in accordance with feckless Democrats' fantasies about how the law might be used, so it's okay!
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:38 PM on October 7, 2023 [22 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:38 PM on October 7, 2023 [22 favorites]
Do you really see the supreme court standing up for the right of old perverts like me trying to indoctrinate defenseless, impressionable children into the trans cult?
Because that's how it would be framed.
posted by tigrrrlily at 5:41 PM on October 7, 2023 [17 favorites]
Because that's how it would be framed.
posted by tigrrrlily at 5:41 PM on October 7, 2023 [17 favorites]
Transphobes are already making the bad faith/inaccurate argument that the statistic that trans youth are significantly more likely to attempt suicide than cis youth, that teaching kids that trans people exist is promoting suicide. In reality, it’s not being trans that is the risk factor, it’s everyone else’s bigotry and transphobic responses that are the risk factor. But already Trump-appointed judges in states that have banned gender-affirming care have sided with the transphobes despite plenty of scientifically sound evidence being presented in court challenges to such bans. So no, unfortunately the list of specific harms targeted by the revised version of the bill is, on its own, insufficient to prevent conservative state AGs from abusing it for anti-LGBTQ+ censorship. Even after the court cases wend their way through the system. I haven’t read the text of the bill (earlier or revised), so maybe there are also other measures intended to prevent such abuses, but given that people who are much better informed about legal issues affecting LGBTQ+ folks in the US than myself are still just as worried (eg. I would be shocked if Serano hadn’t kept up with the version changes, and it sounds like the majority of queer advocacy groups are also still opposed, including ones who have lawyers on staff whose job specifically involves parsing proposed legislation), that seems unlikely to me.
posted by eviemath at 8:11 PM on October 7, 2023 [14 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 8:11 PM on October 7, 2023 [14 favorites]
But it gives attorneys general and the FTC the power to bring lawsuits based on the product designs that, in effect, drive eating disorders, bullying, suicide, and sex and drug abuse that kids haven’t requested and that can be addictive.
Republicans consider advocating for the rights of gay and transgender people, especially in the presence of kids, to be sex abuse. They also consider gender-affirming care to be drug abuse.
posted by dirigibleman at 9:42 PM on October 7, 2023 [10 favorites]
Republicans consider advocating for the rights of gay and transgender people, especially in the presence of kids, to be sex abuse. They also consider gender-affirming care to be drug abuse.
posted by dirigibleman at 9:42 PM on October 7, 2023 [10 favorites]
[Blumenthal:] So, if an attorney general misuses this language, it would be tossed out by a court ... If we have in some way overlooked the need to tighten it further, we can take action.
1)
If you later realize HOW CAN THIS BE BUT LO AND BEHOLD fascist AGs are using this to target trans and queer people, and you want to add language preventing that, you cannot possibly believe Republicans would let you? You cannot possibly. So what you mean is, harm will continue and escalate until some possible future time when your party controls the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and also Democrats ditch the filibuster? And you're okay with that going on.
Seriously look, go put in a carve-out that queer and trans content is not affected by your law and see if Republicans will go with it. Of course they will fucking not, because they know what they want and they're telling you by their actions that they are getting what they want.
2)
Tossed out by a court? When a faked-up litigant shops a case to the likes of Matthew Kacsmaryk, willing to take lawless nationwide action to advance his agenda? Overseen by the Fifth Circuit. Overseen by this Supreme Court. It's Dominionists all the way up. They are on the same team as the AGs who will use this language in the ways Republicans are saying out loud they intend to use it.
posted by away for regrooving at 10:21 PM on October 7, 2023 [18 favorites]
1)
If you later realize HOW CAN THIS BE BUT LO AND BEHOLD fascist AGs are using this to target trans and queer people, and you want to add language preventing that, you cannot possibly believe Republicans would let you? You cannot possibly. So what you mean is, harm will continue and escalate until some possible future time when your party controls the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and also Democrats ditch the filibuster? And you're okay with that going on.
Seriously look, go put in a carve-out that queer and trans content is not affected by your law and see if Republicans will go with it. Of course they will fucking not, because they know what they want and they're telling you by their actions that they are getting what they want.
2)
Tossed out by a court? When a faked-up litigant shops a case to the likes of Matthew Kacsmaryk, willing to take lawless nationwide action to advance his agenda? Overseen by the Fifth Circuit. Overseen by this Supreme Court. It's Dominionists all the way up. They are on the same team as the AGs who will use this language in the ways Republicans are saying out loud they intend to use it.
posted by away for regrooving at 10:21 PM on October 7, 2023 [18 favorites]
I'm trying to think if there's anything that causes more harm to me and mine than Fox and the Republicans. Oil companies? Organized religion?
posted by Jacen at 5:50 AM on October 8, 2023
posted by Jacen at 5:50 AM on October 8, 2023
This is definitely a topic that deserves more than an single link to a Medium post.
posted by 3j0hn at 12:15 PM on October 8, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by 3j0hn at 12:15 PM on October 8, 2023 [1 favorite]
The lead sponsor of the "Kids Online Safety Act," known as KOSA, has stated that it will be used to "protect minor children from the transgender in our culture" in an interview released this weekend.
posted by Artw at 3:30 PM on October 8, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by Artw at 3:30 PM on October 8, 2023 [9 favorites]
Tell Congress: KOSA Will Censor the Internet But Won't Help Kids
posted by Artw at 4:22 PM on October 8, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by Artw at 4:22 PM on October 8, 2023 [5 favorites]
Can right-wing propaganda also be considered platforming harmful material? Because that is 100% going to lead to self harm, suicide, drug abuse, etc. In fact, that's essentially what it's designed to do
posted by treepour at 12:12 PM on October 9, 2023
posted by treepour at 12:12 PM on October 9, 2023
It really isn’t relevant if the person you are asking is Ken Paxton. They’ll just say “no” and go on banning LGBTQ freindly sites.
If the person you are asking is the AG of some blue site do you think that a “yes” answer will result in any action? My guess would be “no”. If someone DID make a concerted effort to ban, say, Truth Social using this bill, will it balance out all the harm caused by it? I would say also “no”.
posted by Artw at 1:05 PM on October 9, 2023 [3 favorites]
If the person you are asking is the AG of some blue site do you think that a “yes” answer will result in any action? My guess would be “no”. If someone DID make a concerted effort to ban, say, Truth Social using this bill, will it balance out all the harm caused by it? I would say also “no”.
posted by Artw at 1:05 PM on October 9, 2023 [3 favorites]
Some of the procedural requirements proposed are reasonable (though needing tweaking--in the original form of the bill, one could easily conclude that anyone who wanted to publish anything on the Internet would have to verify their ages first). What is weird is the opening section, with its incredibly broad "duty of care" unmoored to those requirements. Do they impose additional, specific requirements beyond what the later sections of the statute do? If so, what, exactly? Are they meant to imply a new federal tort liability to be enforced by a private right of action, by parents? Huh?
Permitting enforcement by state AGs easily cuts both ways, though. E.g., Dodd-Frank has a similar provision which many states relied on during the last administration to pursue banks, loan servicers, and the like while the CFPB was in an induced coma.
posted by praemunire at 5:11 PM on October 9, 2023
Permitting enforcement by state AGs easily cuts both ways, though. E.g., Dodd-Frank has a similar provision which many states relied on during the last administration to pursue banks, loan servicers, and the like while the CFPB was in an induced coma.
posted by praemunire at 5:11 PM on October 9, 2023
California delegation quiet on federal bill allowing removal of online LGBTQ content
So what’s the controversy? “Simply put, KOSA as currently written would allow (Texas Attorney General) Ken Paxton and other red-state attorney generals to bring frivolous lawsuits against any content they believe is harmful to kids — which includes LGBTQIA+ content in their view. The states are already passing state laws to censor the internet, but a federal law would give them much more leeway,” said writer and commentator Charlie Jane Anders in an email interview with The Bee. “And the current text of KOSA imposes guardrails made of tissue paper against malicious or bigoted lawsuits by state AGs — the law is written to give them maximum scope of action, with no oversight,” Anders said.
posted by Artw at 6:32 PM on October 9, 2023 [1 favorite]
So what’s the controversy? “Simply put, KOSA as currently written would allow (Texas Attorney General) Ken Paxton and other red-state attorney generals to bring frivolous lawsuits against any content they believe is harmful to kids — which includes LGBTQIA+ content in their view. The states are already passing state laws to censor the internet, but a federal law would give them much more leeway,” said writer and commentator Charlie Jane Anders in an email interview with The Bee. “And the current text of KOSA imposes guardrails made of tissue paper against malicious or bigoted lawsuits by state AGs — the law is written to give them maximum scope of action, with no oversight,” Anders said.
posted by Artw at 6:32 PM on October 9, 2023 [1 favorite]
22 Democrats Sponsor a Bill That Could Censor Abortion Info From the Internet
posted by Artw at 6:03 PM on October 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:03 PM on October 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
« Older Hamas Strikes Israel in Unexpected Assault | "Discogs’ vibrant vinyl community is shattering" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This is feeling like a re-run of SESTA/FOSTA, with Dems likely to adopt a bill with horrible downsides because upsides that don’t actually exist sound like something they should support.
posted by Artw at 12:14 PM on October 7, 2023 [8 favorites]