SB1618 would create a new state framework for “journalistic integrity and ethics” in Hawaii. It establishes a Journalistic Ethics Commission within the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and a separate Journalistic Ethics Review Board to receive complaints, investigate alleged violations, issue determinations, and recommend penalties. The bill would require journalists, editors, and news media outlets operating in the state to follow the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics, prominently label AI-generated or AI-manipulated stories, and refrain from using AI to impersonate individuals or misrepresent facts. It also requires periodic ethics training for newsroom staff and directs the commission to educate the public and media industry and report annually to the Legislature.
The bill also directs the University of Hawaii Board of Regents to study the journalism degree requirements at UH Manoa, specifically the ethics credit hours required for a bachelor’s degree in journalism, and to recommend whether more ethics coursework should be required. The measure is framed as a response to misinformation, deepfakes, generative AI, and declining public trust in media, while also stating that it is intended to preserve freedom of speech and press.
If enacted, SB1618 would add a new chapter to the Hawaii Revised Statutes governing media ethics and would create new regulatory obligations for news organizations, especially larger outlets. It would exempt independent journalists and bloggers with fewer than 10,000 monthly readers, but otherwise could affect print, broadcast, and digital media operating in Hawaii. The bill contemplates public complaints, appeals, fines, public notices of non-compliance, and possible suspension or revocation of state media privileges such as press credentials for government-sponsored events. It would also impose administrative duties on DCCA and reporting duties on the commission and the Board of Regents.
The overall tone of the bill is strongly pro-regulation and pro-ethics, with the stated goal of combating misinformation and improving transparency. Because no committee transcripts or votes are provided, there is no recorded legislative debate or vote history to indicate broader support or opposition. The bill itself anticipates a tension between enforcing ethics standards and protecting press freedom, and it includes a specific section asserting that the state may not interfere with journalistic independence.
The main points of contention likely center on First Amendment concerns, the scope of state oversight over editorial decisions, and whether a government-created ethics commission should have authority to investigate and penalize news outlets. Additional likely concerns include the practical burden on small and nonprofit media, the ambiguity of some blank penalty and membership provisions in the draft, and the potential chilling effect of complaint-driven enforcement. Supporters would likely emphasize accountability, AI disclosure, and public trust, while critics would likely focus on press freedom and government intrusion into journalism.
SB1618 would amend Hawaii law by adding a new chapter to the Hawaii Revised Statutes establishing a state regulatory structure for journalism ethics. It would create a Journalistic Ethics Commission and a Journalistic Ethics Review Board under the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, impose ethics and AI-disclosure requirements on covered media outlets, authorize complaint and enforcement procedures, and require annual reporting to the Legislature. It would also direct the University of Hawaii Board of Regents to study journalism ethics coursework at UH Manoa and report recommendations, potentially leading to future changes in university degree requirements.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest a generally supportive, reform-oriented sentiment focused on combating misinformation, deepfakes, and declining trust in media. However, because no committee discussion or vote record is provided, there is no direct evidence of legislative consensus or opposition. The text itself reflects an attempt to balance ethics enforcement with constitutional press protections, indicating awareness that the proposal may be controversial.
The most notable likely contention is whether the state may regulate journalistic conduct without violating freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Critics would likely object to a government commission and review board policing newsroom ethics, complaint handling, and penalties, especially the possibility of suspending press credentials or imposing fines. Media organizations may also object to the breadth of coverage, the burden of mandatory training, and the potential chilling effect on editorial independence, while supporters would likely argue that the bill is needed to address misinformation, AI-generated content, and public accountability.