Amy Klobuchar's Health Misinformation Act Has Aged Poorly
A proposed bill in 2021 would have put the HHS secretary in charge of censoring COVID-19 contrarianism on social media.

By the summer of 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic had entered a new phase. Vaccines were widely available for those who wanted them, and coronavirus cases had declined as the initial wave was beaten back. Even so, mass vaccination did end the pandemic; the vaccines offered considerable protection against severe disease and death—particularly for the elderly and at-risk population—but they did not prevent infection.
You are reading Free Media from Robby Soave and Reason. Get more of Robby's on-the-media, disinformation, and free speech coverage.
The frustration from the public health establishment was palpable, and top policymakers within the Biden administration blamed vaccine hesitant individuals for exacerbating the pandemic. In July, President Joe Biden said, "the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated." Among government health advisors, a consensus quickly formed that the main culprit was medical misinformation on social media.
Biden asserted that Facebook had blood on its hands and implied that regulation would follow if moderation did not improve; as a consequence, the social media company effectively put the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in charge of determining what kind of speech would be permitted on the platform. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy published a report on "Combatting Health Misinformation" that encouraged social media platforms to "prioritize early detection of misinformation 'super spreaders'" and limit their reach wherever possible. The Center for Countering Digital Hate, an activist non-profit organization, coined the term "disinformation dozen" to refer to the 12 social media accounts most responsible for the spread of anti-vax narratives, and urged social media companies to take action.
The anti-misinformation efforts were not just talk: They had a legislative component as well. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) was particularly animated on this issue. On July 22, 2021, she introduced the Health Misinformation Act, which would have granted broad new powers to the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). These powers would have included the ability of the secretary to reduce online platforms' protection from liability under Section 230, the federal law that immunizes websites from liability for users' speech. In effect, Klobuchar's bill would have established that the federal government could use a public health emergency as a pretext to erode vital free speech protections at the whims of HHS.
It is clear whose speech Klobuchar was interested in censoring: The press release accompanying her bill explicitly mentions the so-called disinformation dozen. Klobuchar and her fellow Democrats sought to empower the HHS secretary to censor COVID-19-related speech with which they disagreed.
Healthy Debate
Needless to say, the Health Misinformation Act never became law, which might be a relief to Klobuchar at present. That's because the secretary of HHS is now Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the very social media users accused of being a misinformation super-spreader. If her bill had been enacted, it would have eventually empowered Kennedy—someone who has been accused by Democrats and the mainstream media of encouraging vaccine hesitancy by promoting the idea that vaccines are dangerous—to make determinations about what counts as misinformation online.
Kennedy has regularly condemned government-directed censorship of health topics online, so maybe he would have never used this ability. But it's not completely impossible to imagine an alternate reality where, say, the Health Misinformation Act is law and RFK's HHS is pushing social media companies to add warning labels about potential adverse effects to posts about vaccination.
"Lawmakers often fail to think about what happens if someone they disagree with is in charge when they create new power," says Shoshana Weissmann, digital director at R Street Institute. "And I see bills with this exact problem constantly."
Indeed, this is precisely why the First Amendment vastly constrains the government's ability to make determinations about what kinds of speech are valid. Politicians would be tempted to propose new restrictions on speech that targets their opponents, and even well-intentioned efforts to promote public well-being are bound to be abused by whomever is swept into power next. Then there's the small matter of the would-be censors subsequently being proven wrong time and time again. So-called experts blithely asserted that anyone casting aspersions on social distancing, mask mandates, lockdowns, and school closures was succumbing to misinformation. Yet the criticisms of these policies have fared better than the policies themselves.
That's without even mentioning the widespread suppression and demonization of the lab leak theory of COVID-19's origins, which was initially branded a racist conspiracy theory and vigorously censored on Facebook. Four years later, both the Energy Department and the FBI have concluded that the lab leak is the more plausible explanation.
There's little reason to think that giving the federal government even more power to police coronavirus misinformation on social media via Klobuchar's proposed law would have benefitted the public. On the contrary, it would have resulted in the censorship of worthwhile dissenting viewpoints—viewpoints that are protected by the First Amendment, regardless of the status of Section 230.
But it's doubly ironic that passing such a law would have massively backfired: The very people that Democrats, the mainstream media, and Biden's health advisors wanted to silence are now in charge of the health department!
I reached out to Klobuchar's office to see if she still supported the bill. She did not respond to a request for comment.
New Sheriff in Town
Jay Bhattacharya, President Donald Trump's pick to lead the NIH, appeared for his confirmation hearing on Wednesday. An esteemed professor of public health at Stanford University, Bhattacharya became known for making thoughtful criticisms of the government's handling of COVID-19. For speaking up against compulsory lockdowns, masking, and vaccination, Bhattacharya was muzzled by social media companies; he argues that this was done at the behest of the Biden administration.
During his remarks on Wednesday, Bhattacharya emphasized that public health had gone astray, and under his tenure, NIH would no longer promote censorship and groupthink.
Jay Bhattacharya pledges to vigorously regulate research that risks causing a pandemic. pic.twitter.com/wTXxtHUirv
— Emily Kopp (@emilyakopp) March 5, 2025
This Week on Free Media
I'm joined by Amber Duke to discuss the Democrats' reaction to Trump's Congressional address, the presidents' assertion that free speech is back, and more.
Worth Watching
People who know me are aware that I'm not really a music guy. I like music just fine, but my tastes are not well-defined. Whatever is popular on the radio is OK by me, although I mostly prefer the rock music from my childhood and teenage years, i.e. the early 1990s through the aughts. (The only concert I've attended in the last five years was Green Day and the Smashing Pumpkins.) Additionally, I listen to soundtracks from video games, movies, and television. If you listen to a playlist of my most frequently played songs, what you're most likely to hear is music from The Legend of Zelda, Avatar: The Last Airbender, and Final Fantasy. I am, at this very moment, listening to the soundtrack for HBO's Westworld.
So with all that in mind, it's very rare for me to recommend music, let alone music from such a random era and genre as this, but here goes: For whatever reason, I have suddenly become extremely into the Zombies—yes, the rock band from the 1960s. I have absolutely no idea why or how they suddenly appeared on my radar. I was familiar with their two main hits, "Time of the Season" and "She's Not There," though I couldn't have told you the name of the band until last week. Well, it turns out I really like all their songs! Kids these days have probably never heard them: Check out the Zombies, Gen Z.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yay Zombies!
We need a law to make it illegal for Amy Klobuchar to use social media. For the safety of the nation. For the children.
"mass vaccination did end the pandemic"
sorry but this isn't true ... natural immunity ended the pandemic
Mass vaccination did approximately jack shit to end it. Even Dr. Birz has said they greatly exaggerated what the vaccine would do.
But we will have its lingering effects for a long time to go. Pretty steep price for something with efficacy akin to a placebo.
But you need to consider the emotions of people, after 2 years of comprehensive psy-ops. They needed an emotional crutch to come out of hiding, and the vaccine worked for that.
Seriously, if not for the vaccine (and vax propaganda) some of my neighbors would still be self-isolated at home and wearing 3 masks.
I'm sure this is a typo. On Rising today, Robby verbally corrected that during his monologue (I've come to find that his articles here are basically his monologue from the show).
At 2:19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f7R-XNXtAg
I think it was a typo also, otherwise the following sentences make no sense.
Which was predictably clear to any non-Woke epidemiologist.
try the soundtrack to the 1989 movie 1969 it has zombies and several other great tunes of the era
I was amazed just how many people were willing to accept fascism in the name of the welfare of the people.
Albert Camus was absolutely right in his statement about this.
Including people who say that they oppose fascism.
*especially* those people.
>>her bill ... would have ... empowered Kennedy to make determinations about what counts as misinformation online.
except Kennedy isn't a tenth the tyrant maniac Klobuchar is. are all characters equally bad in your video game world?
Fuck Joe Biden, piece of shit. Still have my job without a jab while hopefully your son ends up a homeless junkie.
I personally do not recall reading or hearing the term "misinformation" before 2020.
How about "shelter in place"? Recently there was a shooting in town and the news advised residents to shelter in place out of an "abundance of caution" despite the fact that the shooter had been neutralized (and, based on the details provided, it was obviously not a random event).
The first time I heard that I said to a dude at work “they’re fucking with us. They’re using active shooter language for a virus. They are absolutely fucking with us.”
He turned out to be a double masker triple vaxxer, so my mockery was wasted on him…..
2016 is nothing to you?
Kennedy just wrote an op ed encouraging kids to get the measles vaccine and promising government support. He is not an anti vaccer.
Anyone who questions any vaccine at all is an anti-vaxxer according to our betters.
Not really sure how effective the vaccine really was when you take the side effects into account, especially for younger people who got myocarditis after getting it. Sure, it probably helped older people who were most at risk of severe covid but there was no reason for anyone under 50 or who did not have other health problems to get it.
At first, we were told, “get the vaccine; it will prevent you from contracting Covid or spreading it to others.“ Over time it mysteriously turned into, “get the vaccine, this way when you catch Covid it won’t be as severe.“
Anything can be deemed effective if you keep moving the goal posts as necessary.
"coronavirus cases had declined as the initial wave was beaten back"
Already in the second sentence of the article, Robby, you have already lied and shown your bias! The initial wave was not "beaten back" then or at any other time in during the pandemic. If you will take the trouble to look at typical epidemic curve illustrations and compare them to the COVID-19 case curve, you will see that the pandemic curve is almost a perfect fit for that kind of viral epidemic, having nothing whatever to do with anyone or any particular factor which might have "beat it back." Please, please PLEASE stop introducing more bias and misinformation into this already hopelessly muddled issue!
So... masks are mere talismans?
See my comment above. Just like some people will not go outside without their anti-elephant charm, some people would not go outside without their mask. To apply the china shop principle to the feds, they broke the minds of the citizenry, and then owned them--and had to get them back to work and shopping some how.
Everything proposed by a D the last 16 years has not aged well, other than the Trans Pacific Partnership
'A proposed bill in 2021 would have put the HHS secretary in charge of censoring COVID-19 contrarianism on social media.'
Well, we certainly don't want that NOW. But the next time Democrats are in charge, okaley-dokaly.
"the vaccines offered considerable protection against severe disease and death—particularly for the elderly and at-risk population"
Still offering lip service, are we? I'm not sure I buy into that, taking into consideration the awful side effects-blood clots and myocarditis etc.