- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Texas House Passes House Bill 366 Criminalizing Political Memes Without Disclaimers,
Posted on 4/30/25 at 8:31 am
Posted on 4/30/25 at 8:31 am
Texas House Passes House Bill 366 Criminalizing Political Memes Without Disclaimers, Up to One Year Jail
https://deepnewz.com/us-legislation/texas-house-passes-house-bill-366-criminalizing-political-memes-disclaimers-up-15bbe143
quote:
The Texas House of Representatives has passed House Bill 366, also known as the Digital Communications Integrity Act, which criminalizes the sharing of political memes and altered media without a government-approved disclaimer. The bill, led by Representative Dade Phelan and supported by House Speaker Dustin Burrows, mandates disclosures on political advertising containing altered images and AI-generated content. Offenders could face fines or up to one year in jail if their political memes or posts do not include the required disclaimers. Critics argue that the bill's vague wording risks criminalizing satire and political expression, raising concerns about potential infringements on First Amendment rights. The legislation has sparked debate over free speech and misinformation in Texas politics.
https://deepnewz.com/us-legislation/texas-house-passes-house-bill-366-criminalizing-political-memes-disclaimers-up-15bbe143
Posted on 4/30/25 at 8:39 am to loogaroo
If this gets to Abbott's desk, he better veto it.
Posted on 4/30/25 at 8:42 am to loogaroo
Wow, the TEXAS RINOs have screwed that state hard. Georgia is right in line behind them.
Posted on 4/30/25 at 8:43 am to loogaroo
I don’t like this. (R)’s should be for less gubment, not more.
Posted on 4/30/25 at 8:43 am to loogaroo
I was told yesterday we need bigger government to fix things and then they promise they'll give up the power once things are fixed


Posted on 4/30/25 at 8:45 am to Upperdecker
quote:
The bill, led by Representative Dade Phelan and supported by House Speaker Dustin Burrows
Might as well be Dems.
Posted on 4/30/25 at 8:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Whoever said that is a walking around moron.
I was told yesterday we need bigger government to fix things and then they promise they'll give up the power once things are fixed
I thought Texas was full of badasses? Sounds like a bunch of sissy boys to me, and how are they going to prosecute this?
Posted on 4/30/25 at 8:49 am to loogaroo
quote:
Representative Dade Phelan and supported by House Speaker Dustin Burrows
Who are these clowns? Y'all elected these bozos?
Posted on 4/30/25 at 8:49 am to loogaroo
The first amendment would protect against this is would suspect.
Also I find nothing wrong with misinformation. At least from a government perspective.
Government should not be involved in deciding what is correct and incorrect.
We all know how good the government is at telling the truth...
Also I find nothing wrong with misinformation. At least from a government perspective.
Government should not be involved in deciding what is correct and incorrect.
We all know how good the government is at telling the truth...
Posted on 4/30/25 at 8:52 am to loogaroo
quote:
The bill, led by Representative Dade Phelan and supported by House Speaker Dustin Burrows,

Posted on 4/30/25 at 9:00 am to mudshuvl05
quote:
I thought Texas was full of badasses?
Not in their Congress, apparently.
There's obviously too much Dallas, Houston and Austin estrogen in those chambers.
There's no way I can foresee Abbott signing off on this if it hits his desk. The bill itself is an ultimate betrayal of the First Amendment, and for Wheels to not veto it would be career suicide.
Posted on 4/30/25 at 9:19 am to SlowFlowPro
What do you just search the Poli board waiting for that one piece of news you can clamp onto so you can be like “see see I told you so” lol and Of course you would have a gheeeyyy gif
Posted on 4/30/25 at 9:20 am to TigerAxeOK
quote:
The bill itself is an ultimate betrayal of the First Amendment, and for Wheels to not veto it would be career suicide.
No it wouldn't. They will roll out Beto3.0 and morons will vote for Abbott again like they always do.
Posted on 4/30/25 at 9:21 am to StevieG504
quote:
What do you just search the Poli board waiting for that one piece of news you can clamp onto so you can be like “see see I told you so” l
I'm not. I'm giving much more detailed commentary in the ranked choice voting thread, for instance
Posted on 4/30/25 at 9:21 am to loogaroo
This can't be... The media has gotten stuff wrong many times... Let's wait and see what this is all about... Find multiple sources...
quote:
Texas House Bill 366, passed by the Texas House of Representatives, focuses on regulations for political advertising that uses altered media, specifically targeting the use of AI to manipulate images, audio, or video of political candidates or officeholders. The bill introduces a criminal offense for publishing, distributing, or broadcasting such altered political advertising. An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, and the bill takes effect on September 1, 2025.
This post was edited on 4/30/25 at 9:23 am
Posted on 4/30/25 at 9:23 am to loogaroo
Repost from the other thread started before this one and still on the same page:
Text of amendment :
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 255, Election Code, is amended by adding
Section 255.0015 to read as follows:
Sec. 255.0015. REQUIRED DISCLOSURE ON CERTAIN POLITICAL ADVERTISING CONTAINING ALTERED MEDIA; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) This section applies only to a person who:
(1) is an officeholder, candidate, or political committee;
(2) makes expenditures during a reporting period that in the aggregate exceed $100 for political advertising, other than an expense to cover the basic cost of hardware, messaging software, and bandwidth; or
(3) publishes, distributes, or broadcasts political advertising described by Subsection (b) in return for consideration.
(b) A person may not, with the intent to influence an election, knowingly cause to be published, distributed, or broadcast political advertising that includes an image, audio recording, or video recording of an officeholder's or candidate's appearance, speech, or conduct that did not occur in reality, including an image, audio recording, or video recording that has been altered using generative artificial intelligence technology, unless the political advertising includes a disclosure from the person or another person on whose behalf the political advertising is published, distributed, or broadcast indicating that the image, audio recording, or video recording did not occur in reality.
…….
By law it only applies to an officeholder, candidate, or political committee.
And it sounds no different than requiring text similar to those medical ads where it states, “not a real doctor” when someone walks in wearing a lab coat with a stethoscope around their neck before delivering what sounds like a medical opinion.
Text of amendment :
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 255, Election Code, is amended by adding
Section 255.0015 to read as follows:
Sec. 255.0015. REQUIRED DISCLOSURE ON CERTAIN POLITICAL ADVERTISING CONTAINING ALTERED MEDIA; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) This section applies only to a person who:
(1) is an officeholder, candidate, or political committee;
(2) makes expenditures during a reporting period that in the aggregate exceed $100 for political advertising, other than an expense to cover the basic cost of hardware, messaging software, and bandwidth; or
(3) publishes, distributes, or broadcasts political advertising described by Subsection (b) in return for consideration.
(b) A person may not, with the intent to influence an election, knowingly cause to be published, distributed, or broadcast political advertising that includes an image, audio recording, or video recording of an officeholder's or candidate's appearance, speech, or conduct that did not occur in reality, including an image, audio recording, or video recording that has been altered using generative artificial intelligence technology, unless the political advertising includes a disclosure from the person or another person on whose behalf the political advertising is published, distributed, or broadcast indicating that the image, audio recording, or video recording did not occur in reality.
…….
By law it only applies to an officeholder, candidate, or political committee.
And it sounds no different than requiring text similar to those medical ads where it states, “not a real doctor” when someone walks in wearing a lab coat with a stethoscope around their neck before delivering what sounds like a medical opinion.
Posted on 4/30/25 at 9:24 am to Willie Stroker
quote:
By law it only applies to an officeholder, candidate, or political committee.
And it sounds no different than requiring text similar to those medical ads where it states, “not a real doctor” when someone walks in wearing a lab coat with a stethoscope around their neck before delivering what sounds like a medical opinion.
laughs in Douglass Mackey
Back to top


20











