In 2013, Congress overturned the Smith-Mundt Act, an arcane 60-year old law that banned domestic propaganda by U.S. government agencies. Material produced for overseas audiences could not be circulated here at home. The news media often look to courts to protect their interests. However, Congress, in this act, demonstrated its capacity to act as a different kind of ally—one that can take more legislative action while the rest of the government and juridical systems confront the ever-changing digital age.

The lift of the propaganda ban is an exemplar of the United States Congress taking action in an effort to modernize out-of-date laws. It is commendable that Congress overturned the ban. The Smith-Mundt Act was proposed and passed in 1948 and signed by President Harry S. Truman. Recently, with the goal to keep up with the digital age, removing the ban put in place in a very different era makes sense. It had become irrelevant thanks to continually advancing technology and modern society.

Since the 1940’s the media have morphed into a new animal. News began to evolve when networks like CNN began to provide 24-hour news on television. News organizations with different origins and holding different goals popped up around the nation, some digging deeper than others. Following Watergate, reporters and journalists had been looked at as more of an enemy by government leaders. Journalists, to many, seemed eager to expose rather than act in a way that simply relayed information.

The increase in investigative reporting coincided with the rise of the Internet. And, with the Internet, came citizen journalists, who report “news” instantly using Facebook, Twitter, and similar platforms. Searching, using engines like Google and Bing, allow not only professional journalists, but private citizens to look much further into issues than ever before. Not only that—all types of propaganda are now available on the Internet, making the Smith-Mundt Act irrelevant by principle.

Relieving the ban that prevents the spread of “democratic-positive” information within the United States’ Boarders made sense. The ban had outlived its usefulness in the digital age. The spread of any information is nearly impossible to manage, or control, in today’s information sphere. The only argument advanced against the 2013 remake of Smith-Mundt was that it opened the door for politicians to target a domestic audience with political propaganda, something Hitler did with skill.

Congress, by overturning the act, may have hoped to contradict the stigma regarding their failed efforts during the current administration as a stagnant Congress. The courts should not be the only organization that has responsibility for invalidating acts that are no longer applicable. But it is clear enough this legislative tool did not work because of the manner in which daily life has evolved. Congress took action in invalidating that act since it was no longer relevant. Unhappily “action” does not correlate with “stagnant” as Congress has been frequently accused.

The evolution of media made the Act overly broad. With Internet and social media any person that has access to a phone or computer, possesses the capability to publish. The definition of propaganda has changed while everyone has the ability to put their thoughts into the online community, forcefully or calmly as they please. It would be too hard to prove in any case the distribution of domestic propaganda now. Since anyone has the capacity to publish in favor of or against action of the government, anyone is capable of circulating such propaganda. Congress, realizing this, took action and overturned the unnecessary ban on domestic propaganda. The motion also poses a benefit to the American people: providing increased transparency of the government.

The lift of the ban is encouraging in regard to our current Congress. Perhaps we can look to the future with a brighter perspective on Congress’s responsible actions—like nullifying an act that is no longer useful or beneficial for U.S. citizens. That is the type of Congress the people need but often do not see. Perhaps, on the horizon for media members, too, is the possibility of a federal shield Act—soon the definition of “journalist” or “reporter” may become too broad to coerce the turnover of information by the courts. The responsibility Congress took with the Smith-Mundt Act is a positive sign, but we should not allow our hopes to soar too high in the desire lawmakers will act similarly in the future.