Senator Dahm has introduced Senate Bill 1837, the “Common Sense Freedom of Press Control Act.” Here are its main provisions:
“Each individual reporter, producer, writer, editor, or any other employee involved in the production of content distributed by a media outlet is hereby required to:
a. complete a criminal background check conducted by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation,
b. receive a license as prescribed by the Corporation Commission as provided in subsection C of this section,
c. complete a propaganda-free safety training course of no less than eight (8) hours as prescribed by the State Department of Education, which shall be developed in coordination with PragerU,
d. provide proof of liability insurance no less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), and
e. submit to quarterly drug testing for illicit substances to be administered by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation”
Common sense! I am presuming that Sen. Dahm knows that the whole theory behind his bill is absurdly unconstitutional, and a violation of the First Amendment that any sixth grader should be able to spot. The “Prager U.” mention (there is no such university, just a conservative nonprofit advocacy group that likes to call itself that as a nickname) strongly suggests that the bill is intended as a joke, but legislation shouldn’t be used for trolling. Moreover, an unfortunately large number of citizens in every state do not possess that theoretical 6th grader’s understanding of the Bill of Rights. Such a dumb bill will undoubtedly have some lunkheads (and some pundits and bloggers) cheering. (In case you’re wondering, the Oklahoma state constitution also holds that “no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.”)
But I really can’t be sure what Dahm is trying do, if he’s an idiot or just irresponsible with a crummy sense of humor. One reason it’s hard to tell is that there are so many ignorant fools in state legislatures all over the country who propose, and sometimes pass, laws that are only slightly more idiotic.
In my home state of Virginia, for example, a bill was introduced earlier this month to give all Virginia prison inmates a chance to be released into the public after only 15 years, provided that a judge approves. That’s all prisoners, including serial killers serving life sentences without parole. In 2022, a similar bill passed the Democratic-controlled Virginia state senate: it’s a solution to “over-incarceration,” you see. The Republican-controlled House of Delegates killed that bill, but now Democrats control both houses of Virginia’s legislature.
HB 834 instructs judges to consider factors that favor release, like “support from” those seeking the inmate’s release, such as family members,“and the petitioner’s efforts to participate in any educational or therapeutic programs.” Considering factors such as deterrence and retribution is not mentioned in the bill, however, though the Supreme Court has ruled in cases like Tison v. Arizona (1987) that those are valid reason to keep prisoners locked away.
The bill appears to be a more extreme version of neighboring D.C.’s “second look” law, HB 834 would be a threat to spring far more criminals than DC’s law, because it applies to inmates who committed crimes at all ages, while DC’s “second look” only applies to inmates who committed their crimes before they were 25. Again, all prisoners would be eligible for Virginia’s early release.
HB 834 does not require a judicial finding that an inmate “is not a danger to the safety of any person or the community” before release. DC’s law does. And this would be a strange time to emulate the District’s crime policies anyway, as D.C. had an epic jump in murders last year.
A 2022 report from the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that 57.5% of federal inmates imprisoned for violent crimes for ten years or more had to be arrested again. Nor should anyone feel secure putting such decisions into the hands of state judges, the ranks of which are littered with radicals, extremists and boobs. If the Virginia law passes, I would guess that it will take about one rampaging maniac released in some judge’s weak moment to get the law repealed.
The proposed Virginia law is still better than the Oklahoma bill, however.
Ethics Alarms 
I’m 100% sure it’s a parody of gun-control legislation.
I second that. This is exactly what gun owners face and my suspicion is that this has been introduced to illustrate the unconstitutional nature of ‘common sense’ gun control.
Unfortunately, since stupid things get passed all the time, Poe’s law applies, and I’m not sure he deserves the benefit of the doubt without additional context. Perhaps there was such context in the original proposal that was conveniently left out of the media narrative.
Maybe “Common sense control” should be treated like the phrase “a modest proposal”. I did NOT pick up on the similarity until someone pointed it out though.
It is unlikely that no one in Oklahoma would have missed this. This is a state with Constitutional Carry and about 1 in 6 households have a concealed carry license anyway.
I probably would have written this with the following restrictions:
(1) A license will be required to publish any ‘news’ article in any form on any platform or medium. This license will require a background check conforming to point 2 as well as a fingerprint background check performed by the FBI. Fingerprints may be taken and submitted by your chief law enforcement officer. The journalist must also show successful completion of an 8 hour, state-certified journalism course and demonstrate the ability to responsibly report the news (based on state standards).
(2) Before publishing an article, a licensed journalist must first undergo a background check. The journalist may be denied permission to publish if any of the following are true:
(a) The journalist is publishing this article for someone else.
(b) The journalist is a habitual user of any illegal substance, including marijuana.
(c) The journalist has been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor punishable by more than a year in prison.
(d) The journalist is a nonresident alien.
(e) The journalist is the subject of a restraining order.
(f) The journalist is a fugitive from justice.
(3) A background check may cover multiple articles published by the same outlet on the same day,however, enhanced scrutiny will be given if more than 2 articles are published the same day. Publication of more than 2 articles may trigger an investigation by federal agencies.
(4) No more than three (3) articles may be published per month, total without an enhanced journalism license.
(5) All articles must be safely stored away from minors or people prohibited from publishing (see point 2). Failure to do so will be a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
(6) A 7 day cooling off period will be required between the acceptance of the article by background check and the time of publication.
(8) All licensed journalists will be required to carry liability insurance with a minimum coverage of 1 million dollars ($1 million).
(9) Computers, internet connections, paper, ink, pens, pencils, and coffee will be considered journalism ‘parts’. Parts kits may need to be serialized and registered in your locality. A background check may be needed to purchase any journalism ‘parts’ in your locality.
(10) Without an enhanced journalism license, it is illegal to publish an journalism article across state lines. If you wish to publish an article across state lines, you must go to a journalist with an enhanced license and pay for them to transfer the article to a journalist in that state.
(11) It shall be illegal to purchase journalism supplies over the internet if the supplies travel across state lines.
(12) Any article that has an audience of over fifty (50) people will need a special license under the National Journalism Act (NJA). Such an article will need to approved by the FCC and a $200 tax stamp affixed to the article. Approval times are generally 3-12 months. You must retain control of an NJA article at all times. If a normal (type II) article exceeds 50 readers, and NJA permission has not been approved, this will be a felony punishable by 10 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine. Any article under 200 words or one that has an especially clear point will also need to be registered under the NJA.
(13) News articles will not be permitted in court houses, post offices, any place under federal control, parks, or state buildings (including fairground buildings). It is illegal to take an article of journalism within 1000 feet of school property (measured from the edge of the property). Such actions will be a felony.
(14) Brandishing a news article in public will be considered a misdemeanor charge of menacing. Waving the article around in public will be charged as felony.
(15) Articles on especially sensitive topics or on topics of political importance will have to be approved under the NJA. If such articles are considered too hazardous for the public or dangerous to the safety of government officials, they will be denied and an investigation of the journalism license will be undertaken.
This is the parody law I would write because it covers the most common ‘common sense’ gun laws.
Never forget this.
The same side pushing for these gun control laws…
…is the same side that pushes for “a chance to be released into the public after only 15 years, provided that a judge approves”.
Absolutely. The pairing of “common sense”, “control”, and a fundamental constitutional right of definitely meant to mock “common sense” gun control proposals. The training courses, drug testing, and liability insurance are all schemes that have been aimed at encumbering 2nd Amendment rights.
But ultimately I agree with our host. Lawmaking is not the place for jokes. As an electrical engineer, I’ve sometimes remarked that “we didn’t create a worldwide instantaneous electronic communication network so that you could send messages by writing laws.”
Oh, at this point, I think the threat of such laws may have a valid political purpose. You think this ‘joke’ law is unethical, but we have thousands of such ACTUAL gun laws on the book that are no less a ‘joke’ than this and you probably accept them as appropriate and valid.
Acceptance of such ‘joke’ restrictions on the 2nd Amendment leads to complacency and feature creep into the 1st Amendment. In how many states are religious nonprofits barred from activities while nonreligious ones aren’t? In Nevada, Christian churches were barred from meetings with more than 50 people even though non-religious activities were allowed IN THE SAME SPACES for more than 50 people. The Supreme Court found that valid! Look at how many restrictions there are on the 4rth Amendment now. If a law about 1st
Amendment restrictions on journalists is what is required politically to scrap the same restrictions for our other rights, isn’t that politics? When the rules on Supreme Court nominees were changed by the Democrats, was it wrong for the Republicans to use them, or was that just politics? If the Republicans in the House pack all the committees with Republicans and give the Democrats only token representation just to hammer home the point that this should never be allowed again, is that unethical, or just politics?
Um, no. Absolutely not. Where on earth did you ever get that idea?
Now, I understand the impulse to “give’em a taste of their own medicine” in the hopes that the gun control nuts will realize the error of their ways and never try such stunts again. But I think that getting both sides of the aisle engaged in a competition to see who can strip the other side of its most cherished liberties is more likely to end with the wholesale eradication of those liberties than it is to lead to some libertarian epiphany on anyone’s part. So yes, it is indeed unethical.
When I was in college, one of my classmates showed up to the 8:00 AM class at 7:30 AM. I was there because I commuted, but she lived on campus. She told me that she was there because her roommate had locked her out of their room. The roommate had moved her boyfriend in and locked her out because they needed ‘privacy’. This had forced my classmate to sleep in the dorm lounge for 2 weeks. She tried to get the Residence Hall staff to help, but they said “You both are adults and just need to talk this out.”
My classmate wanted to know how she could get her roommate to see this was wrong. I told her that her roommate would not change because she was getting everything she wanted. She got her boyfriend to live in her dorm room alone with her and my classmate was paying the other half of the dorm fee. Why should she change anything? She would only change her ways if someone made her.
The Democrats and the bureaucrats are getting all the tyrannical policies they want passed, in large part due to the PR from the media and the education establishment. Only if people are forced to see how wrong this is will anything change.
My point is that your comment reminded me of the residence hall staff.
Hey , what if we write a law that allows landlords to restrict what can be present in the property, what type of imagery can be displayed, what type of language can be used, and what types of topics can be discussed with specified, mandated opinions? This will apply to guests/customers as well as the renters. The landlord will be given permission to continually monitor the property and assess monetary fines or immediately eject the tenants for breaches?
We do it for online property, why not real property?