Free Speech & Cancel Culture

..."with content often acting as a bridge for teens to explore their own mental health.

A survey commissioned by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has revealed the three biggest mental health concerns for teens are anxiety, stress and depression, with 64% of 13-18-year-olds saying they want appropriate warnings on all films and TV shows featuring this content.

The research, by YouGov, showed that anxiety (50%), stress (38%) and depression (34%) were the issues that most concerned young people, followed by body image issues (30%), suicide (20%) and self-harm (20%).

Nearly seven in 10 teens (68%) say that seeing positive portrayals of mental health conditions on-screen breaks down stigma, and half (48%) said that seeing these depictions helps them understand issues around mental health.

It's clear that seeing mental health issues on screen can act as a bridge to open up discussions, with three quarters (75%) saying that positive portrayals can act as a springboard to get help. In fact, teens said that a scene in a film or TV show has even prompted them to talk to their friends (41%) or parents (39%) about mental health.

64%)of teens say they think content warnings are important, with young people going on to say that they help them protect their own mental health (40%), make informed decisions about what to watch (51%) and protect their younger siblings (23%) and friends (38%).

78% 13-18-year-olds think the media industry has an important role to play in showing mental health issues responsibly.

David Austin, Chief Executive of the BBFC, said:

Films and TV shows have a very important role to play, with content often acting as a bridge for teens to explore their own mental health. That's why the BBFC's role is more important than ever. We're here to give teens what they tell us they want, and need - easy to understand age ratings and content warnings, that are based on extensive research into the feelings and reactions of UK audiences, and reflect what people really think - so they can navigate their own experiences, and start talking about them with their friends and younger siblings.

It's very clear that concerns around what harms young people have moved on significantly. In 2021, teens are concerned about mental health, and how this can impact young people emotionally. For teens' emotional wellbeing and development, clear content warnings need to be displayed on all films and TV shows, whether that's in the cinema, on Blu-ray and DVD or on streaming services. We are calling on all streaming services to follow in Netflix's footsteps and carry trusted, well-known BBFC ratings and ratings info on 100% of content.

Further research by the BBFC showed that 97% of people say they benefit from age ratings being in place. 91% of people - and 95% of teenagers - want consistent age ratings that they recognise from the cinema and DVD to apply to content accessed through streaming services.

Well the BBFC have clearly failed on the consistent age ratings front, film ratings are being frequently changed from the previous submission of the same film and BBFC ratings originating from Netflix seem almost random.

Offsite Comment: Keep trigger warnings out of the cinema

23rd September 2021. See article from spiked-online.com by Joanna Williams

Forget sex and violence, film censors now want to protect us from mental distress.

The Joint Pre-Legislative Scrutiny committee has opened its work into the draft Online Safety Bill. Over the course of their enquiry, one area they must cover -- perhaps as their highest priority -- is the potential for the Bill to be abused as a means of politicising free speech, and your ability to exercise it.

As it has been drafted, the Bill gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport, and potentially to the Home Secretary, to make unilateral decisions, at any time they please, as to what forms of subjectively harmful content must be brought into the scope of the bill's content moderation requirements. Shockingly, it allows them to make those decisions for political reasons.

These risks come in Part 2, Chapter 5, Section 33 of the draft, which states (emphasis our own):

(1) The Secretary of State may direct OFCOM to modify a code of practice submitted under section 32(1) where the Secretary of State believes that modifications are required--
(a) to ensure that the code of practice reflects government policy , or
(b) in the case of a code of practice under section 29(1) or (2), for reasons of national security or public safety.(nb this refers to terrorism and csea content)
(2) A direction given under this section--
(a) may not require OFCOM to include in a code of practice provisiion about a particular step recommended to be taken by providers of regulated services, and
(b) must set out the Secretary of State's reasons for requiring modifications (except in a case where the Secretary of State considers that doing so would be against the interests of national security or against the interests of relations with the government of a country outside the United Kingdom).
(3) Where the Secretary of State gives a direction to OFCOM, OFCOM must, as soon as reasonably practicable--
(a) comply with the direction,
(b) submit to the Secretary of State the code of practice modified in accordance with the direction,
(c) submit to the Secretary of State a document containing-- (i) (except in a case mentioned in subsection (2)(b)) details of the direction, and (ii) details about how the code of practice has been revised in response to the direction, and
(d) inform the Secretary of State about modifications that OFCOM have made to the code of practice that are not in response to the direction (if there are any).
(4) The Secretary of State may give OFCOM one or more further directions requiring OFCOM to modify the code of practice for the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1), and subsections (2) and (3) apply again in relation to any such further direction.

In other words, a government minister will have the authority to direct an (allegedly) independent regulator to modify the rules of content moderation on topics which are entirely subjective, entirely legal, and entirely political, and to order that regulator to enforce those new rules.

Online services, whether the biggest platform or the smallest startup, in turn, will have no choice but to follow those rules, lest they face potential penalties, fines, and even service blocking.

You don't have to be a policy expert, or a lawyer, to see how these illiberal powers could be misused and abused. We've already provided an example of how this blatant politicisation of the boundaries of free speech could be used to silence public debate on legal topics which the government of the day finds unacceptable, for example, migration . You may have strong opinions on that topic yourself, and you have every right to do so. However, your own ability to discuss that topic is on the table here too.

And as political currents shift and parties trade power, we risk a never-ending war of attrition where the government of the day simply silences topics, opinions, and opposition voices it does not want you to hear.

The political powers over free speech contained in the draft Bill are a rare area where the consensus is universal. Other groups, even those who are strongly in favour of the Bill, are equally uncomfortable with the level of government control over an allegedly independent regulator that has been placed on the table. These voices also include groups outside the UK who are alarmed by the potential these powers have to lower the UK's international standing as a free and democratic nation which upholds the right to freedom of expression.

This chorus should not be ignored. The clauses allowing government to politicise the boundaries of legal free speech have no place in this Bill, or indeed, in any Bill. As the pre-legislative scrutiny committee draws its conclusions, and as the draft Bill approaches its final form, these clauses must be deleted and left in the bin where they belong.

A campaign has been growing in support of comic Roy Chubby Brown performing following the news that a planned gig in Sheffield has been cancelled.

Following complaints from a number of people, Sheffield City Trust decided to censor Roy Chubby Brown's show and remove it from the City Hall's programme of upcoming events.

A statement from Chief executive of Sheffield City Trust, Andrew Snelling, said:

We have decided to remove the rescheduled show by comedian Roy Chubby Brown at Sheffield City Hall on January 29, 2022.

We don't believe this show reflects Sheffield City Trust values, particularly our ambition that our leisure, culture and entertainment venues are inclusive for all in Sheffield.

Roy Chubby Brown responded on Facebook:

Hi all, you may have heard by now that the Sheffield city trust/council have banned me from appearing at the City Hall Sheffield in January 2022 due to the nature of my show, so I just wanted to put my view on the record -- At first I had a sense of anger and disbelief, but on reflection I now feel just disappointment and sadness with the decision and the way things are going generally.

I have been performing at the City Hall annually for the last 30+ years and have always had great nights there and a wonderful working relationship with the management and staff at the City Hall, and my fans have always come along and supported me in their thousands through the years.

Now in these strange times of snowflakes and political correctness it has been decided that I am no longer welcome.

Why Now! is my question, WHY NOW! is my show unsuitable after 30 years at the City Hall??

Nothing has changed, the show is performed behind closed doors, and it clearly states on all advertising that IF EASILY OFFENDED! PLEASE STAY AWAY!We don't allow children in! It is strictly 18+ and people who come to the show know exactly what they are coming for206. A GOOD LAUGH! it's an act with one sole purpose, and that is to put a smile on people's faces, certainly not to offend, which I'm sure all will agree is much needed in these present times. I understand the content of my show isn't to everyone's taste, and hand on heart I totally respect that, so as the posters and advertising clearly states.. IF EASILY OFFENDED, PLEASE STAY AWAY!

That quite simply means don't buy a ticket to see me if the show is not for you! It's not difficult! I dont buy tickets for things which aren't my cup of tea, but I certainly don't demonstrate to get them cancelled, and spoil things for people who do want to see it! You have a choice!! But the show obviously does appeal to thousands of people or I wouldn't have had to put pen to paper to write this.. as Chubby Brown wouldn't exist if no one came to see him, and I've been going for 50 years..??!!!

Love Roy

A petition in support of Brown has gathered about 29,000 signatures.

Good Morning Britain
ITV, 8 March 2021, 06:00

Good Morning Britain (GMB) is a weekday morning news and discussion programme broadcast on ITV.

Most of the broadcast on 8 March 2021 was dedicated to discussing an interview between Oprah Winfrey and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex which had been broadcast overnight in the USA. The Interview was due to air in the UK that evening and clips of it had been made publicly available ahead of the full broadcast.

Ofcom received more than 50,000 complaints about the Programme; the majority of which said that comments about mental health and suicide made by one of the lead presenters, Piers Morgan, were both harmful to the audience and highly offensive and that discussions on issues relating to race and racism in the Programme were highly offensive to some viewers.

Ofcom Decision

Overall, Ofcom considered that there is a high public interest value in broadcasting open and frank discussions about race and racism, as long as they comply with the Code. As set out above, we also considered that the Interview between the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Oprah Winfrey contained serious allegations and it was legitimate for this Programme to discuss and scrutinise those claims. While we acknowledged that Mr Morgan's questions about the nature of racism had the potential to be highly offensive to some viewers, the conversations about race and racism in this Programme provided open debate on the issues raised by the Interview. We also considered that the Programme allowed for an important discussion to be had on the nature and impact of racism. ITV had clearly anticipated that racial issues would be discussed at length as part of the coverage of the Interview and had taken steps to ensure context could be provided during the discussions. Despite strong opinions expressed during the Programme, in Ofcom's view any potential offence was justified by the context and the comments and discussions about race and racism were not in breach of of the Code.

Not in Breach of Rules 2.1 and 2.3 in relation to the discussion on mental health and suicide.
Not in Breach of Rule 2.3 in relation to the debate about race and racism.

John Cleese will take on the topic of cancel culture in a forthcoming television series for the UK's Channel 4.

The new documentary will reportedly explore why a new 'woke' generation is trying to rewrite the rules on what can and [mostly] can't be said.

John Cleese: Cancel Me will see Cleese meet various subjects who claim to have been cancelled for their actions or statements, and activists who have led opposition to various public figures. In a statement, Cleese said:

I'm delighted to have a chance to find out, on camera, about all the aspects of so-called political correctness. There's so much I really don't understand, like: how the impeccable idea of 'Let's all be kind to people' has been developed in some cases ad absurdum.

Publisher Picador is considering alterations to Kate Clanchy's Orwell prize-winning memoir amid accusations of supposed racial and ableist stereotyping.

The 2019 book titled Some Kids I Taught and What They Taught Me examines Clanchy's time teaching in UK state schools.

A PC lynch mob of critics and fellow authors formed after a reader review highlighted alleged problematic descriptions of children. The critics highlighted passages that referenced racial facial features and skin colour - as well as describing two autistic children as unselfconsciously odd and jarring company.

In response, the author said she's grateful for a chance to rewrite it:

I know I got many things wrong, and welcome the chance to write better, more lovingly

It was wrong. I don't really have an excuse, except that I am bereaved and it takes people in different ways.

I am not a good person. I do try to say that in my book. Not a pure person, not a patient person, no one's saviour. You are right to blame me, and I blame myself.

Authors who criticised Clanchy's response and questioned the award-winning merit of the book, including Chimene Suleyman, Monisha Rajesh and Professor Sunny Singh, also received criticism from social media users.

 

 

Comment: No one is safe from the woke mob

11th August 2021. See article from spiked-online.com by Joanna Williams

This, remember, is a book about Clanchy's experiences teaching a diverse array of comp kids and the lovely, life-affirming time she had doing so.

The people suggesting it is actually a thinly veiled retread of Mein Kampf are, not to put too fine a point on it, nuts. And yet Clanchy, her publisher and some of Clanchy's early defenders have bowed to these people and issued grovelling apologies for the emotional harm they have allegedly inflicted.

So much of the mob censorship we see today would disappear overnight if people and institutions grew about an inch of backbone and told the woke irritants to piss off. Why so few seem capable of doing this is a key question of this mad age of ours.

Snickers in Spain has pulled a controversial TV advert after complaints from a few people who considered it homophobic'

The advert is one of a long running series showing strange characters getting back to normal after eating a Snickers.

In this case the strange character was the rather effeminate Spanish influencer Aless Gibaja who transformed into a regular masculine guy with a beard and low voice.

The video went viral this week, with some calling for a boycott of Snickers over homophobia, presumably because the masculine guy was depicted as an improvement on the effeminate guy.

The State Federation of Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals tweeted:

It is shameful and regrettable that at this point there are companies that continue to perpetuate stereotypes and promote homophobia.

Spain's equality minister, Irene Montero, also joined the criticism:

I wonder to whom it might seem like a good idea to use homophobia as a business strategy.

Our society is diverse and tolerant. Hopefully those who have the power to make decisions about what we see and hear in commercials and TV shows will learn to be too.

On Thursday, Snickers Spain said it was deleting the advert and apologised for any misunderstanding it may have caused. The company said:

In this specific campaign, the aim was to convey in a friendly and casual way that hunger can change your character. At no time has it been intended to stigmatize or offend any person or group.

Sky News Australia has been banned from uploading content to YouTube for seven days with Google deciding that the news channel violated its medical misinformation censorship policies.

The ban was imposed the day after the Daily Telegraph ended Alan Jones's regular column amid controversy about his Covid-19 commentary which included calling the New South Wales chief health officer Kerry Chant a village idiot on his Sky News program.

The Sky News Australia YouTube channel, which has 1.85m subscribers, has been issued a strike and is temporarily suspended from uploading new videos or livestreams for one week. A YouTube spokesperson told Guardian Australia:

We have clear and established Covid-19 medical misinformation policies based on local and global health authority guidance, to prevent the spread of Covid-19 misinformation that could cause real-world harm.

Specifically, we don't allow content that denies the existence of Covid-19 or that encourages people to use hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin to treat or prevent the virus. We do allow for videos that have sufficient countervailing context, which the violative videos did not provide .

The Law Commission has published recommendations to address the harms arising from online abuse . The recommendations include a coherent set of communications offences to more effectively target harmful communications while increasing protection for freedom of expression.

More than 70% of UK adults have a social media profile and internet users spend over four hours online each day on average. Whilst the online world offers important opportunities to share ideas and engage with one another, it has also increased the scope for abuse and harm. A report by the Alan Turing institute estimates that approximately one third of people in the UK been exposed to online abuse.

The recommendations, which have been laid in Parliament, would reform the "communications offences" found in section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 ("MCA 1988") and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 ("CA 2003"). These offences do not provide consistent protection from harm and in some instances disproportionately interfere with freedom of expression.

The reforms would address the harms arising from online abuse by modernising the existing communications offences, ensuring that the law is clearer and that it effectively targets serious harm and criminality. The recommendations aim to do this in a proportionate way in order to protect freedom of expression. They also seek to "future-proof" the law in this area as much as possible by not confining the offences to any particular mode or type of communication.

The need for reform

The laws that govern online abusive behaviour are not working as well as they should. The existing offences are ineffective at criminalising genuinely harmful behaviour and in some instances disproportionately interfere with freedom of expression.

Reliance on vague terms like "grossly offensive" and "indecent" sets the threshold for criminality too low and potentially criminalises some forms of free expression that ought to be protected. For example, consensual sexting between adults could be "indecent", but is not worthy of criminalisation.

Other behaviours such as taking part in pile-on harassment, which can be genuinely harmful and distressing are not adequately criminalised. Additionally, the law does not effectively deal with behaviours such as cyberflashing and encouraging serious self-harm.

The result is that the law as it currently stands over-criminalises in some situations and under-criminalises in others. This is what the Commission's recommendations aim to correct.

Recommendations in detail: The harm-based offence

The Commission is recommending a new offence based on likely psychological harm. This will shift the focus away from the content of a communication (and whether it is indecent or grossly offensive) toward its potentially significant harmful effects. The recommended new harm-based offence would criminalise behaviour if:

• The defendant sends or posts a communication that is likely to cause harm to a likely audience

• in sending or posting the communication, the defendant intends to cause harm to a likely audience

• the defendant sends or posts the communication without reasonable excuse .

Within the offence, harm refers to serious distress. This threshold is one well-known to the criminal law, including in offences in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Reasonable excuse would include whether the communication was or was meant as a contribution to a matter of public interest. Media articles would be exempt from the offence.

This new offence could also capture pile-on harassment -- when a number of different individuals send harassing communications to a victim. The fact that the offence is context-specific means it could be applied where a person deliberately joins a pile-on intending to cause harm.

Recommendations in detail: new offences

To complement the harm-based offence, the Law Commission has made recommendations to ensure the law is clearer and protects against a variety of abusive online behaviour.

• Cyberflashing: The Sexual Offences Act 2003 should be amended to include the sending of images or video recordings of genitals, for example, "dick pics" sent via AirDrop.

  • To recognise the violation of a victim's sexual autonomy without their consent, the offence would require either that the defendant intends to cause alarm, distress or humiliation, or if the defendant is acting for a sexual purpose, the defendant is reckless as to whether the victim is caused alarm, distress or humiliation.

• Encouragement or glorification of serious self-harm: An offence to target intentional encouragement or assistance of self-harm at a high threshold (equivalent to grievous bodily harm).

  • The change would ensure that the offence targets the most serious encouragement or assistance of self-harm without unduly criminalising vulnerable people.

• Sending flashing images with intent to induce a seizure : A specific offence for sending flashing images to people with epilepsy with the intention of inducing seizures.

• Knowingly false communications : A defendant would be liable if they knowingly send or post a communication that they know to be false and they intend to cause non-trivial emotional, psychological, or physical harm to the likely audience, without a reasonable excuse.

  • This would raise the threshold for the offence currently in the Communications Act 2003, from knowingly causing "annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety" to causing harm.

• Threatening communications : We recommend a specific offence targeting communications that contain threats of serious harm.

  • It would be an offence where the defendant intends the victim to fear the threat will be carried out or the defendant is reckless as to whether the victim fears that the threat will be carried out.

  • The offence defines "serious harm" as including serious injury (equivalent to grievous bodily harm in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861), rape and serious financial harm.

The reforms, if enacted, involve a shift away from prohibited categories of communication (eg "grossly offensive") to focus on the harmful consequences of particular communications. Our aim is to ensure harmful communications are appropriately addressed while providing robust protection for freedom of expression.

An artwork featuring three garden benches surround a rose garden has been banned by Southend Council due to it referencing the locally based development of early atom bombs which were then sent to Australia for testing. Promotional Material for the Estuary 2021 Festival explains:

An English Garden is the Estuary 2021 Festival iteration of How to Make a Bomb , the durational gardening project by artist Gabriella Hirst. The project is centred on the propagation and redistribution of a nearly-extinct species of garden rose which was created and registered under the name Rosa floribunda ‘Atom Bomb’ in 1953.

The How to Make a Bomb project aims to provoke questions about the relationship between of nationalism, gardening, and nuclear colonialism. The garden is a reminder that the red rose of England and the English garden is entangled with a violent past of gardening the world, which has continued into a dangerous present.

The artwork is installed just upriver from Foulness Island at Gunners Park, Shoeburyness, which is former MOD land and is now a nature reserve under the care of Essex Wildlife Trust.

An English Garden's formal layout and beds echo the floorplans of Foulness's nuclear heritage architecture, and the aerial maps of the Australian contaminated test sites.

The artwork has now been taken away and placed in storage thanks to Sourthend councillors' objection to the wording of a plaque in the installation that detailed the fact that nuclear weapons were assembled at Foulness (a matter of record) before being shipped to Australia, where they were detonated. The most vocal of the offended councillors, James Moyies, has said he objected to the artist's view that by increasing its nuclear armament by 40%, the UK government was directing considerable resources towards industries of violence instead of those of care, and by the suggestion that Britain had a historical and ongoing identity as a colonial nuclear state.

The councillors emailed the local arts charity Metal, which commissioned the work jointly with the artists' charity the Old Waterworks, claiming that it constituted a:

direct far leftwing attack on our History, our People and our Democratically Elected Government.

Two paid-for Facebook posts by the clothing retailer Motel Rocks:

a. The first post, seen on 9 April 2021, featured a female model wearing a pink dress getting out of a car. The post included the caption Shop our 'Rose Flock Pale Pink' print on site now.

b. The second post, seen in May 2021, featured a model wearing a halter neck dress. The post included the caption Shop our weekly drops of the hottest Spring pieces on site now.

Five complainants, who believed the models appeared to be unhealthily thin in ads (a) and (b), challenged whether the ads were irresponsible.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

Both ads showed a still image, which when clicked played a video. The ASA understood the complainants had raised concerns about the way the models appeared in the still images and we therefore assessed those images only.

We considered that the model's legs in ad (a) looked very thin, with her thighs appearing to be the same width as her lower leg, and out of proportion with the rest of her body. That impression was exaggerated by the ad's lighting, the angle of the image and the position of the model getting out of the car. We concluded that ad (a) made the model look unhealthily thin and that the ad was therefore irresponsible.We considered the cut of the neckline of the dress in ad (b) placed emphasis on the model's left arm and shoulders. We considered the position of the model's arm made her arm and shoulders appear very thin, with the model's bones in those areas appearing prominently. We also considered the angle of the model's left arm made her upper arm appear noticeable thinner than her elbow joint. Therefore, we also concluded that ad (b) made the model look unhealthily thin and that the ad was irresponsible.

The ads must not appear again in their current form.

Thailand's Department of Rail Transport (DRT) has requested that passengers no longer talk on trains in order to help prevent the spread of COVID-19.

As well as wearing face masks and making sure they socially distance, passengers should not talk to one another or on the telephone, the DRT chief Kittiphan Panchan said.

Passengers are also required to use hand sanitizer at the start and end of their journey and check in using the Thai Chana smartphone app.

The new measures concerning rail travel will be in place until at least July 25.

The UK TV censor Ofcom has revealed an increase in the number of complaints that it receives about UK TV programmes. It received 142,660 complaints between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2021, a 410% rise on the previous 12 months' total of 34,545.

Piers Morgan's comments on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's Oprah Winfrey TV interview on Good Morning Britain in March drew a record 54,453 complaints. Morgan accounts for three more of the 10 most-complained about TV broadcasts.

Ofcom's 10 most-complained about single transmission programmes were:

• Good Morning Britain : 8 March 2021 -Comments by Piers Morgan about the Duchess of Sussex's reference to feeling suicidal - 54,453.
• Britain's Got Talent : 5 September 2020 - Objections to performance by Diversity on 5 September referencing political campaigns by Black Lives Matter (BLM) - 25,017.
• I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here! - Welfare of animals used in trials on the show - 11,516.
• Britain's Got Talent : 19 September 2020 - Alesha Dixon wearing a necklace with the initials "BLM" being offensive and not suitable for a non-political show - 2,565.
• Britain's Got Talent : 10 September 2020 - Objections to Nabil Abdulrashid's performance on the grounds of finding it offensive - 2,253.
• Good Morning Britain - 15 April 2020 - Objections to Piers Morgan's manner of interviewing Helen Whateley MP - 2,017.
• Good Morning Britain - 22 April 2020 - Objections to Piers Morgan's manner of interviewing Helen Whateley MP - 1,334.
• Britain's Got Talent - 3 October 2020 - Objections to Nabil Abdulrashid's performance on the grounds of finding it offensive, and Amanda Holden's dress was too revealing, unsuitable for a family audience - 1,189.
• Good Morning Britain - 28 April 2020 - Perceived bias / bullying from Piers Morgan when interviewing Victoria Atkin, MP - 1,178.
• Good Morning Britain - 26 November 2020 - Disputed Rishi Sunak's claims that he had met with excluded UK leaders - 1,068.

Ofcom noted however:

In many of the cases above, we did not find the issues warranted an investigation.

Florida's social media censoring bill has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge. The judge ruled that the law was an overreach, saying it compels providers to host speech that violates their standards.

The law would have let the state fine social media platforms, if they censor or ban politicians or political candidates, and gives regular users the ability to sue a platform if they are removed without explanation.

The law would have gone into effect July 1.

Supporters of the law, including Representative John Snyder, said it was an effort to keep big tech companies from picking and choosing who gets a voice on their platforms. If the law is scrapped, Snyder said he would support trying again to get a similar law on the books in future sessions.