FORMER STATE EMPLOYEE PLEADS GUILTY TO FOUR FORGERY-RELATED FELONIES

PIERRE, S.D. – 55 year old Renee Strong of Springfield has pleaded guilty to four forgery-related charges connected to crimes committed while she was an employee of the South Dakota Department of Public Safety and performing contract work for the Department of Health.

Strong entered the pleas on Tuesday in Hughes County Circuit Court to two Class 6 felony counts of Offering False or Forged Instruments for Filing or Recording in a Public Office and two Class 5 felony counts of Forgery.  She’ll be sentenced June 10th.

Each felony count of Offering False or Forged Instruments for Filing or Recording in a Public Office carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison and a $4,000 fine. Each felony count of Forgery carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Strong is accused of forging and falsifying food service inspection reports while performing inspections for the Department of Health through a contract with the Department of Public Safety.

South Dakota’s Division of Criminal Investigation investigated the case, and the Attorney General’s Office is prosecuting the case.

 

STANDING ROCK LEADERS RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT FEDERAL FUNDING DURING MEETING WITH SD AND ND GOVERNORS

FORT YATES, N.D. (Mary Steurer / North Dakota Monitor) – Leaders of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe asked governors of North Dakota and South Dakota for help Monday as they face uncertainties with federal funding under President Donald Trump.

The comments came during a rare meeting that brought North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong and South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden to consult with Standing Rock Tribal Chairwoman Janet Alkire and other tribal council members.

Alkire, Armstrong and Rhoden, who convened in the council chambers of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Administrative Center, said they couldn’t recall the last time both governors were in Fort Yates at the same time.

The Standing Rock Reservation straddles North Dakota and South Dakota. This puts the tribe in the unique situation of having to manage overlapping jurisdiction with both states and the federal government.

Federal spending cuts threaten several services in Indian Country the federal government is legally required to provide, including programs that support public education, health care and law enforcement, Stateline reported last month.

Multiple Standing Rock councilors asked Armstrong and Rhoden what the tribe can do to navigate these changes.

“We all know there’s gonna be more,” Alkire said.

Both governors said they share concerns about the cuts.

“We’re in the mode of monitoring, just like you are,” Rhoden said.

He defended the Trump administration’s actions as necessary to bring federal spending under control.

“It’s been many decades since I felt like we had a president that’s actually looking beyond the horizon on fixing what’s wrong with America,” he said.

Alkire said she supports streamlining federal programs if it means Native nations get greater autonomy over their own resources, but she worries tribal communities will suffer if their services are cut.

“We in Indian Country have always faced underfunding, so when you cut something for us, it’s drastic,” Alkire said.

She said Standing Rock is counting on the North Dakota and South Dakota governments and their congressional delegations to make sure the federal government honors its responsibility to Native nations.

Armstrong said he hopes tribal leaders alert their state counterparts as soon as they face issues.

“When disruption happens, we need to know,” he said.

Setting the funding cuts aside, Alkire said the federal government has long neglected to address a laundry list of tribal sovereignty issues. The tribe needs more funding and staff from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as well as fewer restrictions on access to federal land and the Missouri River, to name a few, she said.

“I told Secretary Burgum that he had his work cut out for him,” Alkire said, referring to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Armstrong’s predecessor as governor.

Development was another recurring theme of the meeting.

John Pretty Bear, a district representative, asked Rhoden if he would ask D.C. to fund water infrastructure development in western South Dakota.

“It’s 2025, and we still have people that haul water,” Pretty Bear said.

Rhoden said he’s aware of the issue.

“I live in the middle of Meade County, and if you look at a water map of South Dakota as far as rural water projects, it is a black hole in that area,” he said.

Councilors also asked the governors to help support economic development on the reservation so the tribe’s younger generation can find jobs

“We need more businesses,” District Representative Joe White Mountain Jr. said. “Our kids are growing up and they don’t really have a future.”

During a January address to North Dakota state lawmakers, Alkire called infrastructure a top priority for the tribe.

Standing Rock hopes to one day build a bridge over the Missouri River connecting the reservation to Emmons County. Currently, to cross the Missouri River, Fort Yates residents must drive roughly an hour north to Bismarck or an hour south to Mobridge.

The U.S. The Department of Transportation recently awarded the tribe a $14.5 million planning grant for the project, but more support will be needed to make the dream a reality, Akire said in the address.

A bill signed by Armstrong in March authorizes the North Dakota Department of Transportation to accept ownership of the bridge if it gets built.

Tribal officials said both states could do a better job of consulting with Standing Rock on a variety of issues, including education, transportation, gaming and land use.

Rhoden, formerly South Dakota’s lieutenant governor, assumed office at a low point for tribal relations in the state.

Leaders of all nine Native American reservations in South Dakota voted to ban Rhoden’s predecessor, Kristi Noem — now the U.S. secretary of Homeland Security — from their lands. The votes were in response to Noem’s rhetoric about Indigenous communities in the state, including an unsubstantiated accusation that tribal leaders were “personally benefiting” from Mexican drug cartels, and an assertion that Native American children “don’t have any hope.”

“I think this is an important day in our history and in the road to recovery, as far as rebuilding our relationships,” Rhoden said Monday.

Armstrong’s predecessor, Burgum, was widely regarded as an ally to the five federally recognized tribes that share land with North Dakota.

Armstrong said Burgum’s appointment to the Interior presents “unique opportunities” to the tribe, North Dakota and South Dakota, and he hopes the three governments can continue working toward their common interests.

“There’s not a lot of people that can get me out of Bismarck on less than a week’s notice when the Legislature’s meeting, but when the Chairwoman calls, we say yes,’” said Armstrong.

 

PIPELINE COMPANY FILED HUNDREDS OF LAWSUITS AGAINT LANDWONERS, NOW THE PROJECT IS THREATENED

MANSFIELD, S.D. (AP) — Jared Bossly was planting soybeans one spring night in 2023 on his 2,000-acre farm in South Dakota when he spotted a sheriff’s vehicle parked at the corner of his property. He had a hunch it wasn’t a social visit.

“I’m like, ‘Well, I doubt he’s just being a friendly neighbor, giving a guy a beer at eight o’clock at night,’” said Bossly, 43.

He was right. The sheriff’s deputy served him court papers. Summit Carbon Solutions, the company behind a massive proposed carbon pipeline, was suing Bossly to use his land for the project through eminent domain, which is the taking of private property with compensation to the owner.

“He gives me a stack of papers about like this,” Bossly said, stretching his hands several inches. “They started the process of suing us to take our land.”

Bossly is one of many landowners who were sued by Summit Carbon Solutions as it unleashed a barrage of eminent domain legal actions in South Dakota to obtain land for the nearly $9 billion pipeline spanning five Midwest states.

Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases, revealing the great lengths the pipeline operator went to get the project built, only to be stymied in South Dakota by a groundswell of opposition from local farmers and landowners. The legal salvo generated so much outrage that South Dakota’s governor signed a bill into law in early March that bans the use of eminent domain for building carbon dioxide pipelines, putting the future of the project in doubt.

The review found that Summit brought 232 lawsuits against landowners across South Dakota, North Dakota and Iowa – including lawsuits seeking access to property for surveys. All 156 of the eminent domain actions were brought in South Dakota. Over the course of two days in late April 2023, the company filed 83 eminent domain lawsuits across the state.

Summit spokesperson Sabrina Zenor said the company’s priority is voluntary agreements and that the “vast majority of easements have been and continue to be secured voluntarily.”

“Condemnation is a legal tool available under the law, but it’s not our preferred approach,” Zenor said. “The numbers reflect that—we’ve reached agreements with thousands of landowners without litigation.”

The pipeline would span 2,500 miles (4,023-kilometers) across the five states and connect to 57 ethanol plants. The carbon dioxide produced by these plants would be captured and shuttled through the pipeline and ultimately stored underground in North Dakota, reducing carbon emissions and allowing the ethanol producers to market their fuel as less carbon intensive. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits.

Summit dispatched representatives to state legislatures, county commissions and regulatory boards to make what seemed like an easy sell in a region where the corn and ethanol industry typically has broad support. But Summit’s legal actions and encounters with farmers provoked passionate opposition in South Dakota. Some said their first encounter with Summit was looking out the window and spotting surveyors on their land, and that company representatives were quick to threaten litigation.

Landowners interviewed by Lee and AP described a range of aggressive financial offers made by Summit during the negotiations. One farmer declined an initial $80,000 offer for a 36-acre easement, and that offer grew to $350,000, which he also refused. Another said he turned down an offer north of $40,000.

Bossly, like some other landowners, battled with Summit in court for months to keep the company from surveying his farm in Brown County, a rural farming stretch of northeastern South Dakota. As Bossly tells it, he found out that Summit’s surveyors had shown up on his property in May 2023 after his wife, home recovering from gallbladder surgery, called him claiming that there were strangers inside the house. (In court filings, Summit’s surveyors said they knocked several times before walking to a different building.) Bossly eventually turned his tractor around for the slow, 10-mile drive home from a neighbor’s farm where he had been planting alfalfa.

The company accused him of threatening to kill the surveyors over the phone that day. That landed him in court in front of a judge, who had already ordered landowners not to interfere with Summit’s surveys. But the audience in the courtroom gallery underscored the larger anti-pipeline sentiment brewing in South Dakota: It was packed with farmers rallying in Bossly’s defense. Bossly denies that he made the death threat.

The backlash ultimately had major political consequences in the state. In last year’s primary election, a number of incumbent lawmakers were ousted by candidates opposed to the project.

It created an odd political dynamic in the region: Farmers in some of the reddest counties in America joining forces with environmentalists to block a pipeline that was designed to cater to a bedrock Republican constituency – Midwest corn farmers. Bossly proudly hangs a Donald Trump-JD Vance campaign banner from the ceiling of his shop.

“They did this all to themselves,” Brian Jorde, an attorney representing landowners, said of Summit. “Their legal plan was, ‘we will force them into submission because the lawsuits will break them’.”

PIPELINE BACKED BY THE ETHANOL INDUSTRY

Summit’s pipeline, first proposed in 2021, is viewed by the Midwest ethanol industry as a potential economic boon.

Nearly 40% of the nation’s corn crop is brewed into ethanol, which is blended into most gasoline sold in the U.S. With the rise of electric vehicles and less of the fuel additive powering cars, some Midwest farmers and the ethanol industry see passenger jet fuel as a potentially huge new market for ethanol. But under current rules, the process for turning ethanol into aviation fuel would need to emit less carbon dioxide to qualify for tax breaks intended to reduce greenhouse gases. Supporters see carbon capture projects such as Summit’s pipeline as a way to fight climate change and to help the ethanol industry.

Carbon capture involves separating carbon dioxide from the emissions of industrial facilities, such as ethanol plants, and pumping it underground where it is stored so it doesn’t contribute to climate change.

Carbon capture isn’t without critics. Some environmentalists question its effectiveness at large scale and say it allows the fossil fuels industry to continue unchanged.

Then there’s the Midwest farmers who oppose the project, questioning whether the pipeline would be safe in the event of a rupture and saying Summit trampled over their property rights.

TAKING LANDOWNERS TO COURT

Some South Dakota landowners described troubling moments with Summit’s representatives. LeRoy Braun, a 69-year-old fifth-generation farmer in Spink County, said that “land acquisition people” working for Summit threatened to sue him during a March 2023 visit at his property after he refused to sign an easement agreement.

“Just as they were leaving, they said, ‘Well, if you don’t sign, we’re going to file eminent domain on you and you’re going to get nothing compared to what we’re offering you’,” Braun said. He said his neighbors described similar interactions.

The last time Summit’s representatives stopped by his property in late April 2023, they indicated that they wanted to continue a dialogue, Braun said. But a few hours after they left, a sheriff’s deputy served him with condemnation court papers.

“I just thought, ’Well, these are the most arrogant, bullying type of people I’ve ever dealt with,” Braun said.

In response to Braun’s claim that he was threatened with litigation, Summit spokesperson Zenor said that they “don’t condone threats or coercion” and the company “can’t confirm the exact wording” of the interaction. She added that the timing of the eminent domain lawsuit was “not a retaliatory act.”

Other landowners alleged that Summit had private armed security guards present during surveys. Craig Schaunaman, a farmer in Brown County and a former South Dakota legislator, said that during Summit’s survey of his land in May 2023, one of two on-site security guards was carrying a holstered pistol. “I thought it was uncalled for,” Schaunaman said.

Zenor said that Schaunaman’s account is “not consistent with our policies or our understanding of what occurred.” She added that “current policy does not include” armed security.

Such views aren’t uniform among South Dakota farmers. Walt Bones, a fourth-generation farmer in Minnehaha County and a former state secretary of agriculture, strongly supports the project for its potential economic benefits and said that his interactions with Summit’s representatives, who were interested in his land, were always respectful.

South Dakotans who oppose the project were dug-in from the start and spread “lies” and “overblown” safety concerns about the pipeline, Bones said.

When Summit started filing the condemnation lawsuits in April 2023, many South Dakota landowners, such as Bossly, weren’t surprised. What Bossly didn’t expect was how his run-ins with Summit would galvanize opposition.

After the threat allegations were detailed in court documents, Bossly’s name was everywhere – on television news and across social media. The company wanted a judge to hold him in contempt. During a May 2023 hearing, the judge declined to do so, but said Bossly must not “come within 100 yards” of Summit’s surveyors, according to a transcript of the hearing.

So Bossly largely stayed confined to the area of his workshop after Summit’s surveyors hauled large machinery to his South Dakota farmstead on June 20, 2023. Sheriff’s deputies were also present. The surveyors spent hours working on his farm. Photos and videos of the incident were posted online and circulated on social media.

“That day really kicked our opposition movement into gear because that’s when we really got support from all over the state,” said Ed Fischbach, a farmer in Spink County who helped organize the project’s opponents. “Even people that this pipeline doesn’t even affect were so appalled by what this company was doing that day.”

As for Bossly, life was different. A farmer who grows alfalfa, rye and other crops, Bossly became a standard bearer for the opposition to Summit’s pipeline. He was doing media interviews and speaking at public meetings about the project. Bossly got a standing ovation after speaking at a conference of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association – a group whose website states that a sheriff’s law enforcement power in a county is greater than that of any other official – in Las Vegas in 2024.

“I didn’t even know what Zoom was,” Bossly said. “And now, like, that’s two or three nights a week where I’m on Zoom with different people across the state or the nation.”

Summit kept filing eminent domain lawsuits in South Dakota until late August 2023. In seven cases, landowners signed easements after getting sued in condemnation, court records show. But after the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission rejected Summit’s permit application in September 2023, Summit “paused or dismissed” the legal actions, Zenor said.

POLITICAL FALLOUT

By the end of 2024, Summit had secured approval for routes in Iowa and North Dakota, a leg in Minnesota and the underground storage. In Iowa, the commissioners who approved Summit’s route were appointed by Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican with strong backing from the state’s farming organizations. Although many Iowa landowners opposed the project, powerful groups such as the Iowa Corn Growers Association supported the proposal because of its promise to open new markets for corn-based ethanol. Summit was founded by Bruce Rastetter, a major Iowa donor to Republican political candidates.

But Summit faced hurdles in South Dakota, where it still lacked a permit and the state Supreme Court ruled in August that the company had not yet proved that it qualified for eminent domain power. In the November election, South Dakota voters rejected regulations that opponents said would deny local control over such projects and consolidate authority with state regulators. Supporters framed the regulations as a “landowner bill of rights.”

And the composition of the South Dakota Legislature had changed significantly after the 2024 primary, when voters elected new lawmakers who opposed Summit’s pipeline and its use of eminent domain, said Jim Mehlhaff, the Republican majority leader in the South Dakota Senate and a supporter of the pipeline. Lawmakers also were pressured by Summit’s vocal opponents to vote for the new eminent domain law, he said.

Mehlhaff said that the new law sends a signal that South Dakota is “not business friendly.”

“The legislature, you know, at the behest of what I would call the shrill minority, will cut your legs out,” he added.

The federal government’s approach to climate change also has changed dramatically since the pipeline was proposed. While former Democratic President Joe Biden increased tax incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to encourage carbon capture to slow climate change, Republican President Donald Trump has emphasized the need for more oil and gas drilling and coal mining.

It’s unclear how Summit will proceed in South Dakota. The company asked state regulators to suspend its permit application timeline. Zenor said the company is focused on advancing the project in states that “support investment and innovation” but added that Summit continues to “believe there is a path forward” in South Dakota.

But even some supporters of Summit say the company didn’t do itself any favors in South Dakota.

“Did they get off to a bad start? Did they soil their sheets? No question, absolutely,” Bones said. “I mean, I wouldn’t argue that a bit.”

 

NEBRASKA UNICAMERAL ADVANCES SOCIAL MEDIA PROTECTIONS AND STUDENT PHONE BANS

LINCOLN, NE (Nebraska Examiner) – State lawmakers are one debate away from adopting two bills backed by Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen meant to increase online safety for minors and curb student phone use at school.

Senators on Wednesday, by voice vote, advanced Legislative Bill 504, the “Age-Appropriate Online Design Code Act” by State Sen. Carolyn Bosn of Lincoln. It would require online services to explicitly protect minor users and their personal information in the physical design of certain applications or websites, including social media.

LB 504’s goal is to tackle rising youth social media use and harms such as depression, anxiety, eating disorders, bullying, harassment, stalking, suicide and more.

Bosn, a former deputy county attorney in Lancaster and Saunders Counties and a mother of four young children, said the online services covered under her bill profit off of users’ data, including from screen time, clicks or purchases. She added that families know the importance of bills such as LB 504 and how difficult it is to stay ahead of an “ever-changing online world.”

The bill is about public safety, Bosn explained, comparable to car seats, toddler beds, training wheels, helmets and high chairs.

“We think about safety features in every other product we provide to our most vulnerable,” Bosn said. “So why wouldn’t we make every effort to make kids online safer?”

Specifics of the bill

Under LB 504, “qualified online services” are those that:

Conduct business in Nebraska.

Determine the purposes and means of processing users’ personal information.

Have annual gross revenue over $25 million, adjusted every other year for inflation, at least 50% of which is derived from the sale or sharing of personal user data.

Buy, receive, sell or share the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households or devices each year.

Online services with “actual knowledge” that fewer than 2% of users are minors (up to age 18) would be excluded from the act, as would federal, state, tribal or local governments for design features “in the ordinary course of its operations.”

Should Bosn’s proposal conflict with one or more other laws, “the law that affords the greatest protection from harm to minors shall control.”

State Sens. Terrell McKinney and Margo Juarez, both of Omaha, both spoke in favor of Bosn’s bill and said it was important to have guardrails in place for children.

Juarez, a former school board member for Omaha Public Schools, said she imagined she would have appreciated the guidance if she had dealt with such social media influences when her children were younger.

Children and teens using these online services would need to be treated differently online than adults, requiring easy-to-use and accessible tools, such as for parents up to their child’s 13th birthday, to crack down on:

Screen time.

A minor being able to communicate with other users.

Other individuals being able to see a minor’s personal data.

The operation of all design features, including to opt-out of any “unnecessary” features.

Personalized recommendations, allowing an opt-in for a chronological info stream rather than one based on user activity.

In-game purchases or other transactions, placing limits or prohibiting such activity.

The sharing of the precise geolocation of the minor and providing obvious notice of such tracking.

Targeted advertising of minor users would also be prohibited on qualified online services. So would notifications or push alerts from such online services between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. during the school year, and 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekdays during the school year.

Bosn’s proposal also prohibits “dark patterns” from being used on minors. These are user interfaces “designed or manipulated with the effect of substantially subverting or impairing user autonomy, decision-making or choice.” This could include features that influence user choices often without the awareness of what they are consenting to, such as tracking or targeted ads.

First Amendment concerns

State Sen. George Dungan of Lincoln, as he did when the bill was first debated in February, said he had “philosophical concerns” but also legal questions over whether LB 504’s requirements would be constitutional under the First Amendment right of free speech.

Dungan’s largest concern was that the bill would require these settings to be default. He cited a recent case in California where a similar law was put on pause.

“I believe that in order to be compliant with the First Amendment, it is important that we not curate the speech that is being made by these private actors,” Dungan said.

Bosn said requiring the default settings would add some “teeth” to the law.

State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha, noting he has four children almost the same age as Bosn’s, said he appreciated the changes that Bosn made for the second-round debate as a “step in the right direction.”

Cavanaugh said that while he shared concerns about social media and taking action, he was concerned about “injecting the government from a top-down approach.”

“I think there are concerns people raise [that] young people should be entitled to some level of their own privacy about their thoughts and things like that,” he said. “I don’t know where you draw that line.”

‘Sit this one out’

Bosn said she made multiple changes after talking with opponents, but that while she tried multiple times to work with Dungan and Cavanaugh, they hadn’t engaged. She criticized the duo, who are both attorneys, for saying they agreed with the premise but in effect saying, “We’re just not there yet.”

She called that “a little disingenuous.”

“Maybe you should sit this one out,” Bosn said. “Either have the courage to come and say, ‘These are the changes we want made,’ … or don’t bother.”

Bosn said one senator who previously raised concerns, State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln, worked on the bill before Bosn filed an amended version about one week ago.

“If you’re not going to read it and you’re not going to come and talk with me about your concerns, please don’t stand here and patronize me and say, ‘I really support your efforts,‘” Bosn said.

‘Rules of the Constitution’

Bosn said she had removed a main provision of her bill similar to an issue raised in the California case, even though she said she disagreed with those concerns.

That language would have required qualified online services to implement features to prevent compulsive usage, severe psychological harm (including anxiety and depression), severe emotional distress, “highly offensive intrusions on reasonable privacy expectations,” identity theft, discrimination or other injuries.

The amended bill would also no longer require online services to treat all users as a minor without until it is known that the user is not one. Online services would also not be required to issue an annual compliance report.

Dungan said he had to “respectfully dispute” that the Nebraska and California proposals were substantively different and apologized if his concerns had come off as patronizing.

“It still addresses the same underlying issue, which is that it seeks to regulate speech in a way that is overly broad,” Dungan said.

Dungan said he thought the bill was a “good idea, but, unfortunately, we do have to adhere to the rules of the Constitution.”

An effort by Dungan to remove the “default settings” language from Bosn’s bill failed 26-10 against his amendment. Bosn’s amendments to her bill were approved 45-0.

Student cellphones and social media

LB 504 is one of four proposals backed by Pillen and Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers this spring that addresses online safety for minors.

A second bill, advanced Tuesday by voice vote to a third and final round of debate, LB 140 by State Sen. Rita Sanders of Bellevue, would require each of the state’s 245 public school districts to prohibit student use of personal electronic devices, such as cellphones, on school grounds or at a “school instructional function,” like a field trip.

Most school districts already have such policies, and districts would retain wide latitude in approving the places and times when such devices could be used.

The other bills are LB 383, from State Sen. Tanya Storer of Whitman, and LB 172, from State Sen. Brian Hardin of Gering. Storer’s “Parental Rights in Social Media Act” advanced 6-1 from the Bosn-chaired Judiciary Committee, with LB 172 amended in.

LB 383 would prohibit anyone from creating social media accounts without first verifying their age after Jan. 1. One method of age verification could be a digital ID card. Minors (up to age 18) could not create an account without clear parental consent.

Hardin’s LB 172 would update existing state laws against child sexual abuse material to outlaw computer-generated images of child pornography.

Storer has designated LB 383 as her 2025 priority bill. It is scheduled to begin debate Wednesday.

‘Stand up for our kids’

Bosn’s LB 504 would take effect Jan. 1 if passed. Civil violations could be enforced by the Nebraska AG’s Office, up to $50,000 for each violation. The bill would include funding for a new assistant attorney general, or about $150,000 each full fiscal year.

Companies would have a six-month “grace period” to comply with the act, or until July 1, 2026.

Bosn said “red flags” over youth online activity have been flying from educators, medical professionals, law enforcement, judges, parents, grandparents, guardians and children who she said were acknowledging problems and asking for help.

Bipartisan groups of lawmakers nationwide have been doing just that, Bosn added.

“This is the time to stand up for our kids,” Bosn said. “This bill is a common sense opportunity for this body to demonstrate the political will to protect Nebraska children online.”