Florida Statutes 112.23 - Prohibition on government-directed content moderation (added by SB 262 alongside the FDBR). PROVISIONS: (1) PROHIBITION on Florida state + local government entities + officers + employees from: (a) DIRECTING + REQUESTING social media platforms or other online platforms to MODERATE specific content or accounts; (b) ENTERING INTO AGREEMENTS with platforms providing for moderation; (c) DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY communicating moderation requests outside of statutory notice channels. (2) EXCEPTIONS: (a) law enforcement responding to imminent threats to life or property; (b) emergency communications; (c) statutorily authorised public health communications; (d) intellectual-property enforcement notices; (e) statutory criminal-investigation requests under valid legal process. (3) ENFORCEMENT: violations may be enjoined by court + civil penalties + private right of action for consumers harmed by moderation following prohibited government communication. CONTEXT: inspired by the 2022-2023 Twitter Files revelations + Murthy v. Missouri Supreme Court case (decided 2024 against First Amendment plaintiffs on standing grounds + not on the merits). The Florida 112.23 prohibition is broader than the federal jurisprudence allows + may face First Amendment + Supremacy Clause challenges. COORDINATION: similar laws have been enacted in Texas + Tennessee + other states + are subject to ongoing federal-court litigation.
This control maps to 10 controls across 6 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 10 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.