The specter of disinformation and misinformation has hung over the country for the past several years. With accusations of foreign meddling into American elections, the rise of AI and the proliferation of deepfakes, the issue has steadily come to the forefront of political conversations in the U.S. and around the world. Colorado Senate Bill 24-084, which passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 3 to 2 party-line vote, would give the Colorado Attorney General $150,000 to undertake certain measures to study disinformation and misinformation, create resources about the issue and make recommendations to the Colorado Legislature.
The bill requires the attorney general’s office to establish an initiative to encourage respectful engagement and discourse, develop and share resources to facilitate productive and honest conversations regarding statewide and national issues to help people find common ground and collaborate with organizations across the state to develop and update the materials used in connection with the resources.
In addition to these prerogatives, the office will also be required to study how internet channels, including social media, are used to share and spread disinformation, as well as review relevant state and federal constitution provisions, laws and regulations to address any potential issues.
The bill also adds a requirement for the attorney general to publish and submit a report of its findings that includes recommendations to the state legislation.
The bill is sponsored by Democratic Sen. Lisa Cutter and Rep. Lorena Garcia.
Cutter appeared before the committee to testify about the bill. She told the committee she believes deeply in the First Amendment, and referenced her history of running several bills along those lines. She said this bill is a study built to look at what’s going on in the misinformation and disinformation space online and to get an understanding of what can be done about it.
Several individuals testified about their concerns for the bill. Among those concerns were the fallibility of the government and the potential ramifications on the constitutional protection of free speech.
Andrew Barton, programs and engagement manager at Common Cause, told the committee his organization supported the bill. Barton said the spread of misinformation and disinformation poses a significant threat to democracy, and the bill is a necessary and proactive measure to combat that threat by allowing the committee and the legislature to move forward and find long-term solutions.
A representative from the Colorado AG’s Office, Jeffrey Riester, told the committee the bill doesn’t put the attorney general in a position to decide what is or isn’t disinformation or what people can post online. He added there was no predetermined outcome of the bill, and it would be an open and honest review of the law to understand what authority the state has to act in the space.
Republican Sen. Bob Gardner questioned Riester if the $150,000 appropriated would be redundant to efforts already occurring. Riester told Gardner the money would allow the AG’s office to conduct proactive research, rather than just examining the history of the issue. Riester added the office believed a blessing from the Colorado Legislature is critical, as it doesn’t want to be seen as overstepping its authority or bounds.
Gardner said he thought the AG didn’t need the legislature’s authority to do the study or the $150,000 appropriation to conduct it. He also echoed some of the witnesses’ concerns over potential First Amendment implications of the bill.
The bill was amended once in committee before its passage. The amendment changed the word curriculum in the initial language of the bill to resources. Cutter told the committee curriculum is a very specific term used in the education space, whereas a teaching resource bank is something anyone can draw on. She added the bill was never intended to create classroom curriculum.
After the amendment passed without issue, the bill was approved and moved to appropriations on a 3 to 2 vote, with the three Democrats in committee voting yes and the two Republicans voting no.