AN ACT TO REQUIRE A COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION WHERE A PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATES THE VIOLATION OF A SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY'S COMMUNITY STANDARDS OR POLICIES BY A DEFENDANT'S COMMUNICATIONS ON THE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY'S PLATFORM; TO AUTHORIZE THE COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN THE DEFENDANT, ANY SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY THAT DISTRIBUTES, HOSTS OR DISSEMINATES THE DEFENDANT'S COMMUNICATION, OR ANY CORPORATE SPONSOR OF THE DEFENDANT; TO AUTHORIZE THE COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE FILING OF CRIMINAL CHARGES RELATED TO THE COMMUNICATIONS TO BE ENJOINED AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HAS VIOLATED A SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY'S COMMUNITY STANDARDS OR POLICIES; TO PROVIDE THAT A CRIMINAL CONVICTION RELATED TO THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE PETITION SHALL BE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO MERIT THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMANENT INJUNCTION UNDER THIS SECTION; TO AMEND SECTION 97-45-15, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO DEFINE THE TERM "HARASS"; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
Impact
The legislation modifies existing provisions in the Mississippi Code, particularly regarding cyberstalking laws and community standards on social media. It allows courts to consider the existence of criminal charges related to the communications in question when determining if they have violated these standards. A relevant criminal conviction will be accepted as sufficient evidence to support the issuance of a permanent injunction, thereby placing considerable weight on criminal legal outcomes in civil matters concerning social media conduct.
Summary
Senate Bill 2358 aims to establish the process by which courts can issue injunctions against individuals whose communications violate the community standards of social media platforms. Under this bill, a plaintiff can seek an injunction if they can demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that the defendant's communications breach such standards. The court holds discretion over the injunction's scope and duration and can include not just the defendant but also associated social media companies and corporate sponsors if deemed necessary by the court.
Contention
There are potential points of contention regarding how this bill could affect individual rights, particularly concerning the definition of harassment and the implications of enforcing community standards established by private companies. Critics may argue that this law could infringe on free speech, as it involves civil penalties tied to the subjective standards of social media platforms. Moreover, the potential for extending legal responsibility to social media companies and corporate sponsors raises questions about the appropriateness of their involvement in individual disputes, and the overall application of such a framework could set a precedent for similar legislation in other jurisdictions.