Texas Legislature Passes Bill Criminalizing Memes

HB 366 Advances in Texas Legislature, Sparking Debate Over Political Advertising and Free Speech

On April 29, 2025, Texas House Bill 366 moved forward in the 89th Legislative Session, marking a significant step in the state’s efforts to regulate political advertising containing altered media. The bill, which has been placed on the General State Calendar, aims to require disclosures on political advertisements that use manipulated or artificial content, such as deepfakes or altered images, and introduces criminal penalties for non-compliance. However, its advancement has ignited a heated debate over its implications for free speech, political expression, and the potential criminalization of satirical content like memes.

What is HB 366?

HB 366, introduced in the 2025-2026 legislative session, seeks to address the growing concern over manipulated media in political advertising, particularly with the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies capable of creating convincing deepfakes. The bill mandates that any political advertisement containing “altered media” must include a government-approved disclaimer indicating the content has been manipulated. Failure to include such a disclaimer would be classified as a criminal offense. The legislation is framed as a measure to protect election integrity by ensuring voters are not misled by fabricated or deceptive media.

The bill’s text specifically targets content that could misrepresent candidates or political figures, aiming to curb “unfair gamesmanship” in political campaigns. Supporters argue it addresses a critical need to maintain transparency in an era where AI-generated content can easily distort public perception.

Legislative Progress

HB 366 has progressed steadily through the Texas House, with a notable milestone on April 29, 2025, when it was placed on the General State Calendar, signaling it is ready for floor debate. Earlier in the session, on March 12, 2025, the bill was discussed in committee, where testimony was provided by representatives from organizations like the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). However, the committee hearing saw limited public participation, raising concerns about the bill’s visibility and the extent of public input.

The bill’s rapid advancement—described by some observers as passing in “about 30 seconds with no debate”—has drawn criticism for lacking thorough discussion. Critics argue that such a significant piece of legislation, with potential First Amendment implications, deserves more robust scrutiny.

Supporters’ Perspective

Proponents of HB 366, including some Republican lawmakers, argue that the bill is a necessary safeguard against the misuse of AI-generated content in elections. They point to the potential for deepfakes to spread misinformation, citing examples of fabricated videos or images that could sway voters. The bill is seen as a proactive step to ensure transparency and accountability in political advertising, aligning with broader efforts to protect election integrity.

Testimony from groups like TPPF has emphasized the importance of curbing deceptive practices while maintaining that the bill’s intent is not to stifle legitimate political discourse. Supporters also argue that the disclaimer requirement is a minimal burden compared to the potential harm caused by unchecked manipulated media.

Opponents, including free speech advocates and some conservative activists, have raised serious concerns about HB 366’s scope and potential overreach. Organizations like the Institute for Justice (IJ) and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) have publicly opposed the bill, arguing that its broad language could criminalize harmless political satire, such as memes or parody videos. They warn that requiring a “government-approved disclaimer” for any altered content could chill free expression and violate First Amendment protections.

Critics on social media platforms, particularly on Twitter, have been vocal in their opposition, labeling HB 366 as an attempt to suppress conservative voices. Some have accused the bill’s sponsor, House Speaker Dade Phelan, of pushing the legislation to target memes that mock him or other political figures. Posts on X have described the bill as a “meme regulation bill” that could criminalize everyday political humor, with one user suggesting it would require disclaimers even for humorous comparisons, like likening a politician to a celebrity.

The bill’s critics also argue that its vague definition of “altered media” could lead to inconsistent enforcement, potentially punishing individuals for sharing content that is clearly satirical or not intended to deceive. They fear it could empower authorities to selectively target political opponents, further eroding trust in the legislative process.

HB 366 comes at a time when Texas lawmakers are grappling with the challenges posed by rapidly evolving technology. The rise of AI tools capable of creating hyper-realistic deepfakes has prompted states across the U.S. to consider similar regulations. However, Texas’ approach has drawn particular attention due to its criminal penalties, which some argue set a concerning precedent for regulating online speech.

The bill also reflects broader tensions within the Texas Republican Party, where internal divisions have fueled debates over legislative priorities. Critics of HB 366, including some conservative activists, have labeled its supporters as “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only), accusing them of aligning with progressive policies that restrict free speech. Calls for Governor Greg Abbott to veto the bill have already emerged, with some urging grassroots opposition to halt its progress.

As HB 366 moves to the House floor for debate, its fate remains uncertain. The bill must pass both the House and Senate before reaching Governor Abbott’s desk, where it could face a veto if opposition continues to mount. Public hearings and floor debates will provide opportunities for further scrutiny, and advocates on both sides are likely to intensify their efforts to sway lawmakers.

For now, HB 366 stands as a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over balancing election integrity with free speech. Its outcome could have far-reaching implications for how Texas—and potentially other states—regulates political expression in the digital age. As one X user put it, the bill’s advancement raises questions about whether “posting a photo of Big Mike having a more muscular back than Mike Tyson needs to have a disclaimer.” Whether such concerns are hyperbolic or prophetic remains to be seen.

For more information on HB 366’s status, visit the Texas Legislature’s official website at capitol.texas.gov.