BiNet USA / Current work
Digital Right of Reply
Protect speech. Preserve the record. Make accountability possible.
People should not have to afford years of litigation simply to place their own evidence on the record. We are developing a bipartisan response to that gap.
What we are proposing
A practical, accessible route to respond to disputed claims, preserve relevant evidence, make corrections discoverable, and examine the financial incentives behind harmful misinformation. The working legislative title is Digital Right of Reply and Accountability Act; it is not an enacted law or a filed bill identified on this site.
We begin with a voluntary reply-and-correction protocol and policy consultation. Legislative options will be tested against civil liberties, privacy, editorial independence, and the realities of the institutions being asked to act.
Five starting commitments
- A dated record: identify the original public claim and preserve an appropriate source without unnecessarily repeating intimate or harmful material.
- A sourced response: distinguish documentation, testimony, opinion, disputed allegations, and adjudicated findings.
- Visible corrections: keep a correction and version history, not an unexplained disappearance of the record.
- Fair review: provide understandable decisions, accessible participation, and an opportunity to challenge errors.
- Financial accountability: research how amplification and monetization work, publish supported findings, and consider remedies without promising outcomes.
A reply must not become censorship
Survivor accounts, journalism, whistleblowing, satire, criticism, and good-faith reporting must remain protected. Neither an accusation nor a reply becomes a verdict because an organization publishes it.
The Supreme Court invalidated a compelled newspaper reply statute in Miami Herald v. Tornillo (1974). That decision is a starting constraint, not a reason to abandon practical access to response. Any mandate affecting editorial decisions or platforms requires additional current constitutional and statutory review.
The workgroup we are developing
We invite civil-liberties specialists, survivor advocates, journalists, researchers, technologists, community organizers, and policymakers across parties. Invitations do not establish confirmed membership or institutional endorsement.
Initial work covers evidence and testimony standards, legal and policy review, platform incentives, accessible process, and public education. Participation needs consent, confidentiality boundaries, attribution, and clear terms. Commissioned research and strategy should be paid.
What progress will look like
A published protocol, sourced policy brief, community review, and tested response process come before claims of changed law or repaired harm. Measures may include response time, correction visibility, accessibility, and the ability to appeal. Baselines and results will be reported separately.
This project is not a law firm, an emergency service, or a guarantee of removal, compensation, legal representation, or a court outcome.