World Peace

What’s recent with Louisiana officials and online posts?

GoogleAI Mode: “A new and exceptionally broad Louisiana law, effective in February 2026, will allow a wide range of public officials to sue or press criminal charges against individuals who do not remove online posts containing the officials’ personal information upon request. 

Details of the New Law

Scope of Protection: The law empowers hundreds of state officials, including the governor, attorney general, state lawmakers, district attorneys, and even their live-in relatives and retirees, to demand the removal of their personal identifying information from the internet.

Covered Information: Protected data can include home addresses, phone numbers, places of worship, spouses’ workplaces, and more.

Enforcement and Penalties:

Private citizens and businesses will have 72 hours to remove the content after receiving a request.

Failure to comply can result in lawsuits and criminal penalties, including a fine of up to $1,000 and up to 90 days in prison per violation.

Broad Application: Unlike similar laws in other states, Louisiana’s statute applies to nearly any type of online post, including social media posts, private websites, the state’s political campaign contributor database, and even news stories.

Criticism: Free speech advocates, such as the Louisiana Press Association, have called the law “wildly unconstitutional,” arguing it infringes on citizens’ First Amendment rights and public transparency. 

Other Recent Social Media Developments

Minors’ Online Privacy: Louisiana also has new laws regarding minors’ use of social media (the Louisiana Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act and HB 577), which require parental consent for minors under 16 to create accounts, restrict targeted advertising to those under 18, and ban adults from direct messaging minors unless already connected. The enforcement of some provisions has been stayed due to ongoing litigation.

Government Communication Lawsuit: Louisiana officials were involved in a significant federal lawsuit, Missouri v. Biden, challenging the federal government’s communications with social media companies about content moderation. A federal judge in Louisiana initially issued a broad injunction limiting these communications, but the U.S. Supreme Court later threw out the case, ruling that the states did not have the legal right to sue. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

What personal info is protected under the Louisiana law?

GoogleAI Mode: “The new Louisiana law provides broad protection for the personal information of public officials and their live-in family members. Officials can demand the removal of posts containing a wide array of information, with failure to comply resulting in potential lawsuits and criminal penalties. 

The types of personal identifying information that officials can demand be removed from online platforms include: 

Home addresses

Telephone numbers

Personal email addresses

Birth dates

Marital records

Places of worship

Schools and daycares attended by their children

Employment locations of their spouses, children, and dependents 

This law is considered more sweeping than similar statutes in other states because it applies to a wide range of officials (including the governor, attorney general, state lawmakers, district attorneys, and retirees) and covers nearly any type of online post, including news stories and public databases. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

What public info might be more restricted by this law

GoogleAI Mode: “The new Louisiana law may restrict access to public information that contains the personal identifying details of public officials, even if that information was previously available in public records or public databases. The law’s broad wording suggests that content in sources that are typically public-facing could be subject to removal requests. 

Specifically, the law could impact:

Political Campaign Contributor Databases: Information within the state’s official campaign finance database could become restricted if it contains personal details of officials, such as home addresses.

Mortgage and Property Records: Documents like mortgage deeds, which are typically public records required by federal law, may be subject to removal demands if they reveal the official’s home address.

Traffic Tickets and Court Records: Information from publicly available court systems and records of traffic violations could be impacted if they contain protected personal data.

Birth Announcements and Church Calendars: Seemingly innocuous online posts, such as birth announcements or a church’s public event calendar, could be targeted if they include details like places of worship or children’s birth dates.

News Stories and Political Commentary: Unlike similar laws in other states, Louisiana’s law specifically applies to news stories and political commentary, meaning journalists and news organizations could be forced to remove factual, public information from their archives or face legal action.

General Personnel Records: While some personnel information is already confidential under existing law, this new statute expands the ability to restrict details like home and wireless phone numbers, personal email addresses, and home addresses. 

Transparency advocates have voiced strong concerns, describing the law as “wildly unconstitutional” and warning it may create a “chilling effect” on free speech and government transparency by removing information that is generally considered a matter of public interest. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

How does Louisiana’s new law compare to others across the US?

GoogleAI Mode: “Louisiana’s new law is considered far more sweeping than similar laws in other U.S. states due to its broad application to a wide range of officials, the types of information covered, the potential for criminal penalties, and its impact on public records and news reporting. 

Key Differences from Other State Laws

Scope of Protected Officials:

Louisiana: The law protects hundreds of state officials, including the governor, attorney general, state lawmakers, district attorneys, and their live-in relatives and retirees.

Other States: Most other states limit the scope to far fewer people, typically only judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement personnel.

Breadth of Covered Information:

Louisiana: A broad range of information can be subject to removal demands, including home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, birth dates, marital records, and even places of worship.

Other States: The scope of what can be removed is usually narrower, often limited to just home addresses, telephone numbers, and email accounts. It almost never includes items like places of worship.

Application to Public Records and News:

Louisiana: The statute applies to almost any online post, including social media, private websites, the state’s political campaign contributor database, and critically, even news stories.

Other States: Many states, such as Texas, include specific exemptions for content that involves “reporting, news gathering, speaking, or engaging in other activities intended to inform the public on matters of public interest or public concern”. These exemptions protect the media and public transparency.

Penalties and Enforcement:

Louisiana: Failure to remove information within 72 hours can lead to civil lawsuits and criminal penalties, including fines of up to $1,000 and up to 90 days in prison per violation.

Other States: While other states aim to reduce the risk of political violence, the enforcement mechanisms and the inclusion of criminal penalties for individuals or entities who do not comply quickly can differ significantly. 

Government transparency advocates have described Louisiana’s version as “wildly unconstitutional” precisely because of its expansive reach into areas generally considered matters of public interest and the potential “chilling effect” it may have on free speech. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

On its face, does Louisiana’s new law violate the freedom in the Constitution & human rights law?

GoogleAI Mode: “It is widely argued by legal experts and advocacy groups that the new Louisiana law presents significant conflicts with the U.S. Constitution and human rights principles. Free speech advocates, such as the Louisiana Press Association and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, have labeled the law “wildly unconstitutional.”

Arguments for Unconstitutionality (U.S. Constitution)

The law faces several legal challenges concerning its compliance with the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and the press:

Prior Restraint: The requirement to remove content within 72 hours under threat of legal action functions as a form of “prior restraint” on speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has established that prior restraints are presumed unconstitutional except in extreme circumstances (e.g., national security threats).

Vagueness and Overbreadth: Critics argue the law is vaguely worded and overly broad, potentially criminalizing a wide range of innocuous posts and chilling protected speech out of fear of penalty.

Lack of Public Interest Exception: Unlike similar laws in other states, Louisiana’s law lacks a specific exemption for information in news stories or public records that is a matter of public interest, which directly conflicts with constitutional protections for the press.

Arguments Concerning Human Rights Law

The law is also viewed by some as inconsistent with principles enshrined in international human rights documents:

Freedom of Expression: Documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protect the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media. The law’s potential to suppress public records and political commentary may be seen as a violation of these standards.

Government Transparency: The law is seen as a move to diminish government transparency and accountability, hindering the public’s right to information that allows them to make informed decisions about their elected officials.

The law’s opponents anticipate that legal challenges will likely be filed to block its enforcement before it is scheduled to take effect in February 2026.

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

What are some legal challenges anticipated for the Louisiana law?

GoogleAI Mode: “Legal experts and government transparency advocates anticipate a number of legal challenges to the new Louisiana law, primarily centered on violations of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment rights. These challenges are expected to be filed by media organizations, free speech advocacy groups, and potentially individuals who are threatened with lawsuits under the new statute. 

Anticipated legal arguments include:

First Amendment Violations: The most significant challenge will be that the law infringes on the right to free speech and a free press. Critics argue the law is an unconstitutional “prior restraint” on speech because it forces the removal of truthful information that is already a matter of public record or interest.

Vagueness and Overbreadth: The law’s broad language, which applies to “any type” of online post (including news stories and political commentary) and a very wide array of “personal identifying information” (including a judge’s birth date or an official’s place of worship), is expected to be challenged as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

Lack of Public Interest Exception: A key point of contention is the absence of an exception for content that involves “reporting, news gathering, speaking, or engaging in other activities intended to inform the public on matters of public interest”. Similar laws in other states, such as Texas and Maryland, include this protection, and legal precedent suggests its absence in the Louisiana law makes it more vulnerable to a constitutional challenge.

Conflict with Public Records Laws: The law could clash with existing public records laws (including federal requirements for things like mortgage documents) by allowing officials to demand the redaction or removal of information that is otherwise required to be publicly accessible.

Precedent of Unconstitutionality: Advocates will likely point to a similar California law that was repealed after a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional, demonstrating a history of courts striking down such sweeping restrictions on public information.

Chilling Effect on Speech: Legal challenges will also emphasize the “chilling effect” the law is expected to have on private citizens, businesses, and journalists, who may self-censor out of fear of facing lawsuits or criminal penalties, which can include fines and jail time. 

The law is scheduled to take effect in February 2026, which gives opponents time to file lawsuits and seek injunctions to block its enforcement before it goes into effect. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

Has there been situations where officials’ personal information appeared online or in public records?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, there have been several situations where the personal information of Louisiana officials appeared in public records or online, leading to controversy and prompting the recent legislative changes. 

Notable Instances

Governor’s Staff Home Addresses: In late 2024 and early 2025, it was reported that the home addresses of top staff for Governor Jeff Landry were present on the state’s Ethics Board website via their mandatory financial disclosure forms. Although a state law required this information for transparency, the governor’s office requested redactions due to security concerns, which led to a debate and a subsequent ethics board vote to keep the addresses private, despite the law at the time.

Judges’ Campaign Finance Records: Three judges from the Jefferson Parish Juvenile Court requested that their personal information, including home and spouse’s business addresses, be removed from the Ethics Board’s online campaign finance database. They utilized an existing (though narrower) judicial privacy statute to make these demands.

General Personnel Information: Before the new, broader law was enacted, certain pieces of public employee information were already protected by existing state law (La. R.S. 44:11), such as Social Security numbers, medical records, and home/wireless telephone numbers. This indicates an ongoing tension between public transparency and personal privacy. 

These incidents highlight how personal information, even when legally required for public disclosure, has been a contentious issue in Louisiana and was a driving force behind the push for the new, far-reaching law that will be effective in February 2026. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

What led to the Ethics Board redacting the Governor’s staff addresses online?

GoogleAI Mode: “The Louisiana Ethics Board redacted the home addresses of Governor Jeff Landry’s staff from online financial disclosure forms at the request of the Governor’s office, which cited security risks as the primary concern. The decision sparked a significant debate because a state law explicitly required those addresses to be public. 

Key factors that led to the redactions include:

Security Concerns: The governor’s general counsel’s office argued that revealing the home addresses of high-level staff posed a security risk, putting their families at potential risk in an increasingly polarized political environment.

Attorney General’s Opinion: The Attorney General’s office issued an advisory opinion stating that the officials had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their home addresses and that this right, contained in the state’s constitution, overrode the 2008 ethics law requiring disclosure.

Board Vote and Policy Shift: The Ethics Board initially questioned whether staff had the authority to redact the information without changing the law. However, after the Attorney General’s opinion and a shift in board dynamics (including new appointees from the governor), the board voted to formally adopt a policy allowing these redactions.

Legislative Changes: The controversy contributed to the push for the new, broader state law (effective in February 2026) that allows a wide range of officials to demand the removal of their personal information from the internet, which effectively settled the issue by changing the law to match the governor’s desired policy.

Comparison to Other State Employees: The governor’s office also pointed to a separate state law that already keeps public employees’ personal phone numbers, email addresses, and home addresses confidential in general personnel records, arguing that top staff should be afforded similar privacy expectations. 

The decision was controversial, with some ethics board members and transparency advocates arguing that it amounted to an alteration of public records without legal grounds at the time and went against the intent of the 2008 transparency law. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

Did the Ethics Board violate the law by redacting before February 2026 in making the policy decision?

GoogleAI Mode: “Whether the Louisiana Ethics Board violated the law by redacting home addresses before the new law’s effective date of February 2026 is a matter of significant legal and political contention, but there has been no definitive court ruling on the matter.

Arguments for Violation: Some board members and transparency advocates, such as former House clerk Alfred “Butch” Speer, argued that the board staff effectively broke the law. A 2008 statute required the “full name and residence address” of top officials to be publicly available. Critics contended that the board, an administrative body, did not have the authority to override an explicit state law and that only the legislature could change the law. Speer suggested the action of altering public records could be considered a “criminal act”.

Arguments Against Violation: The board, and the Attorney General’s office in an advisory opinion, maintained that the redactions were justified by the right to privacy in the Louisiana Constitution. They argued this constitutional right superseded the conflicting statute, giving legal “coverage” for the board’s policy decision. 

Ultimately, the board’s decision was an internal policy change based on a specific legal interpretation that was not tested in court. The subsequent passage of a new law by the legislature effectively settled the issue by changing the statute to align with the board’s controversial policy, making the original dispute moot in the long term. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

What are the implications of the new law for investigative journalism?

GoogleAI Mode: “The new Louisiana law presents significant obstacles and risks for investigative journalism by creating a legal “chilling effect” on reporting about public officials. The key implications are:

Vulnerability to Lawsuits and Criminal Charges: Journalists and news organizations could face civil lawsuits and criminal penalties, including fines up to $1,000 and up to 90 days in prison per violation, for not removing an official’s personal information within 72 hours of a request. This places the burden of legal compliance squarely on the news outlet.

Suppression of Public Records: The law makes it difficult to report on information that is a matter of public record or interest. This includes information like:

Financial Records: Mortgage documents or details about property ownership that reveal an official’s address and may indicate a potential conflict of interest or legal issue.

Biographical Information: An official’s birth date (relevant for mandatory judicial retirement ages) or their spouse’s place of employment (relevant for conflict of interest reporting).

Legal/Court Records: Information contained in traffic tickets, divorce filings, or other court cases.

Lack of Journalistic Exemption: Unlike similar laws in states like Texas and Maryland, Louisiana’s law does not contain an exemption for “reporting, news gathering, speaking, or engaging in other activities intended to inform the public on matters of public interest or public concern”. This absence is a major point of contention and a primary reason free speech advocates have called the law “wildly unconstitutional”.

Chilling Effect on Sourcing: The threat of legal action for publishing certain personal details could make it harder for investigative journalists to cultivate and protect sources who come forward with information about wrongdoing, as the act of sharing information could become a legal risk for both the source and the reporter.

Increased Litigation Costs: News organizations anticipate higher operating and legal costs in having to defend against potential lawsuits, which could drain resources and discourage reporting on sensitive topics. 

In short, the law forces journalists to choose between the risk of criminal penalties or self-censorship, severely hindering their ability to hold public officials accountable and inform the public.”