Legislation

We strongly supported this legislation which would protect literature with “educational and governmental” value, as well as materials in a “bona fide school, museum, or public library.”

While ensuring a healthy workplace is a laudable goal, we opposed a piece of far-reaching and subjective legislation which would impose liability on employers or co-workers who, among other actions, "confuse" a person emotionally.

We urged caution in trying to quickly control the new world of artificial intelligence with this bill that would regulate electoral communications generated by artificial intelligence, and which would allow politicians to seek injunctions against “deceptive” AI-generated communications.

We were glad to provide support for this legislation which seeks to declare as a matter of state policy the responsibility of government to protect the freedom of libraries and librarians to fulfill their mission without fear of censorship.

Though very sympathetic to the interest in protecting election officials in light of the nationwide upswell of threats made to these personnel, we opposed legislation which would make it a felony to threaten harm, directly or indirectly, to an election official or poll worker.

As juvenile and inadvisable as it is to use generative artificial intelligence to create sexually explicit, but fake, digital images, criminalizing the dissemination of such digitally generated content raises numerous First Amendment concerns.

We opposed this legislation which would have greatly increased the tax credit program for businesses that make donations to “scholarship organizations” that funnel money to private and parochial schools for tuition purposes.

While ensuring a healthy workplace is a laudable goal, we opposed a piece of far-reaching and subjective legislation which would have imposed liability on employers or co-workers who, among other actions, provide “persistent criticism.”

We opposed legislation that would have prohibited the outdoor advertising of cannabis, noting that such a restriction on commercial speech concerning a legal substance in RI would undoubtedly be found unconstitutional under the First Amendment.