AN ACT relating to government social media accounts.
HB 323 would regulate how Kentucky public agencies and certain public officials use social media accounts that are used to communicate government business. For covered government accounts, the bill generally prohibits disabling comments, deleting comments, blocking users, hiding comments, or otherwise preventing public engagement. It also treats removal of a post after engagement has occurred as destruction of a public record. The bill creates exceptions allowing moderation only when a court determines a comment is libelous or slanderous, obscene, harassing, or an imminent threat to public safety.
The bill also applies to official electronic communications from public schools and school districts. It would prohibit schools and districts from using official email, webpages, social media, or other traceable communication systems to advocate for or against political topics, parties, candidates, or questions. The bill specifically includes advocacy related to tax increases, charter school applications, legislation pending before Congress or the Kentucky General Assembly, and ballot questions. It further limits schools and districts from restricting lawful public commentary on such communications except when needed to protect student safety and privacy.
HB 323 would add new provisions to KRS Chapter 61 governing public agency social media and to KRS Chapter 160 governing school communications. It would create a private right of action allowing affected persons or entities to sue public agencies or officials for violations, with potential injunctive or declaratory relief, litigation costs, and attorney’s fees. For schools and districts, it would impose a content-neutral prohibition on political advocacy in official communications and limit moderation of public responses, thereby constraining how public institutions manage online engagement and official messaging.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to reflect a pro-transparency and free-speech approach toward government-run social media accounts. Its structure suggests support for open public access to official online forums and skepticism of government moderation of public commentary. At the same time, the bill also shows concern for defamatory, obscene, harassing, and threatening content by preserving court-based exceptions and safety-related restrictions.
The main points of contention are likely to be the limits the bill places on government moderation of social media and the potential for litigation against public agencies and officials. Supporters would likely emphasize viewpoint neutrality, public access, and preservation of public records, while critics may argue that the bill could force agencies to host abusive or disruptive comments until a court orders removal, create administrative burdens, and expose agencies to lawsuits. The school-related provisions may also be controversial because they bar official communications from taking positions on political issues, including tax measures, legislation, and charter school matters, which could be viewed as either protecting neutrality or restricting institutional speech.