5 ms·

Court Dumps Texas's Social Media Moderation Law as Clearly Unconstitutional

34 points by xoa 5y ago

xoa 5y ago
There have been a number of articles on this today and the Techdirt one is the most extensive in terms of citing the key parts of the ruling and highlighting previous precedent from what I've seen, but the title had to be shrunk to fit HN's character limit. Important to note as well that Section 230, while utterly vital and also under attack right now, doesn't feature in this at all. This is purely about the 1A. This ruling also addressed a number of the typical tropes that regrettably appear on HN. An expected but still very nicely thorough ruling, more so then the Florida one.
- finite_jest 5y ago
  Well, it's a ruling by a judge appointed by President Obama [1][2] who is very sympathetic to leftwing causes [3], so he has his biases. My own personal (non-expert) take on this is that if we want to preserve free expression, we should perhaps bring back a version of fairness doctrine (or right of reply) targeted at platforms (which I think were killed by President Reagan, unfortunately). Do you happen to happen to have a link to the ruling on DeSantis's version of the law? I thought they were still waiting for the appeals. I also thought DeSantis's rendition was more clever, as they tried to frame the selective enforcement of the ToS as a form of fraud. I would be interested in knowing your opinion on this. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Pitman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Pitman [2]: There are studies have that confirm that who judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans do indeed make different decisions. [3]: I think he is the same judge who blocked the heartbeat law and the boycott ban.
ggm 5y ago
IANAL but I have some concern there is a sting in the tail. I support moderation, I prefer moderated spaces online. But, the moderator has taken on an editorial role. In Australia as I understand it the editor has a burden of duty-of-care: that which you let through, you are deemed to have published. So.. for lower bar lawsuit risk, moderation rights paint a target on you. Maybe in the US the higher barrier to sue for defamation makes this less risky. But I see the risk in eg publication of state secrets, illicit content. This ruling might be weaponised to get some vicarious liability out. Common-carrier has a get out clause, only the author bears the burden AFAIK
- xoa 5y ago
  >But, the moderator has taken on an editorial role. Yes? That's the point. That's why it's protected Free Speech. The entire point of free speech is to take perspectives! And critical to the right to say something is the right to not say something. If I want to support a specific policy or candidate or the like on my private property by putting out a sign in their favor, necessarily I must have the right to prohibit anyone else from putting out any signs on my property supporting whatever else. They may do so on their property, but not mine. If the government requires me to allow everyone to put up a sign supporting everything, it has the same effect as supporting nothing. And it would be no different if I allowed anyone else campaigning for said policy to do so as well. That all of us can take opinionated views and then advocate them in the public sphere is vital for robust debate. >In Australia as I understand it the editor has a burden of duty-of-care: that which you let through, you are deemed to have published. Liability is an entire separate thing (covered by Section 230) from this. But thankfully in America when it comes to moderation of platforms there is no such thing since it'd completely destroy the entire user content internet (including Hacker News itself fwiw). >Maybe in the US the higher barrier to sue for defamation makes this less risky. There is no liability at all for moderation. >But I see the risk in eg publication of state secrets, illicit content. It Government's job to protect their secrets. If private unconnected individuals get ahold of them they may publish them. This predates the internet entirely and was thoroughly dealt with during the Vietnam War with regards to the Pentagon Papers in the SCOTUS case New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) [0]. And rightly so. As far as illicit content, there is no issue at all. Platforms must of course respond to legal orders, legal take downs, the user who published something illicit is personally liable, and if they themselves publish it then they of course are liable. This has nothing to do with illegal material which by definition is illegal, this has to do with the government attempting for force people to engage with views they do not want to. If someone doesn't like how somebody else speaks on/with their own private soap box, they are free to go make another one (and indeed that is now easier then at any time in human history). ---- 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...
  - j_walter 5y ago
renewiltord 5y ago
Excellent article. Another blow struck against those who would restrict free speech.
throwawaysea 5y ago
Social media is just a utility service and should be regulated as such. Just like your power company cannot cut you off, tech companies shouldn't be able to cut you off based on your political views and opinions. Clarence Thomas got it right: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/clarence-thomas-is-right-about-big-tech/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/clarence-thomas-is-ri... I don't get the argument the author of this Tech Dirt article is supporting here. The problem is that a common carrier is engaging in censorship. But the argument seems to be that that very same censorship is justification that social media companies are not common carriers: > User-generated content on social media platforms is screened and sometimes moderated or curated. The State balks that the screening is done by an algorithm, not a person, but whatever the method, social media platforms are not mere conduits. Yes, the problem is that they are not behaving as conduits when they should be, not that they "are not" mere conduits. Then again, Tech Dirt is tremendously biased (look at all the mentions of "Trump" in this article) and so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised at the pandering take in this article.
- afrodc_ 5y ago
  Why do you think social media platforms should be common carriers? Generally curious.
  - hirotuku788 5y ago
    Because hiding behind the "you can just send your tweets in the mail" argument is obviously self serving. Three companies get to control 90% of what people are allowed to say in the digital era. If you don't see how that is a problem for free speech then I can't believe you care about it.

34 points by xoa 5y ago

xoa 5y ago

There have been a number of articles on this today and the Techdirt one is the most extensive in terms of citing the key parts of the ruling and highlighting previous precedent from what I've seen, but the title had to be shrunk to fit HN's character limit. Important to note as well that Section 230, while utterly vital and also under attack right now, doesn't feature in this at all. This is purely about the 1A. This ruling also addressed a number of the typical tropes that regrettably appear on HN. An expected but still very nicely thorough ruling, more so then the Florida one.

finite_jest 5y ago
Well, it's a ruling by a judge appointed by President Obama [1][2] who is very sympathetic to leftwing causes [3], so he has his biases. My own personal (non-expert) take on this is that if we want to preserve free expression, we should perhaps bring back a version of fairness doctrine (or right of reply) targeted at platforms (which I think were killed by President Reagan, unfortunately). Do you happen to happen to have a link to the ruling on DeSantis's version of the law? I thought they were still waiting for the appeals. I also thought DeSantis's rendition was more clever, as they tried to frame the selective enforcement of the ToS as a form of fraud. I would be interested in knowing your opinion on this. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Pitman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Pitman [2]: There are studies have that confirm that who judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans do indeed make different decisions. [3]: I think he is the same judge who blocked the heartbeat law and the boycott ban.

ggm 5y ago

IANAL but I have some concern there is a sting in the tail. I support moderation, I prefer moderated spaces online. But, the moderator has taken on an editorial role. In Australia as I understand it the editor has a burden of duty-of-care: that which you let through, you are deemed to have published. So.. for lower bar lawsuit risk, moderation rights paint a target on you. Maybe in the US the higher barrier to sue for defamation makes this less risky. But I see the risk in eg publication of state secrets, illicit content. This ruling might be weaponised to get some vicarious liability out. Common-carrier has a get out clause, only the author bears the burden AFAIK

xoa 5y ago
>But, the moderator has taken on an editorial role. Yes? That's the point. That's why it's protected Free Speech. The entire point of free speech is to take perspectives! And critical to the right to say something is the right to not say something. If I want to support a specific policy or candidate or the like on my private property by putting out a sign in their favor, necessarily I must have the right to prohibit anyone else from putting out any signs on my property supporting whatever else. They may do so on their property, but not mine. If the government requires me to allow everyone to put up a sign supporting everything, it has the same effect as supporting nothing. And it would be no different if I allowed anyone else campaigning for said policy to do so as well. That all of us can take opinionated views and then advocate them in the public sphere is vital for robust debate. >In Australia as I understand it the editor has a burden of duty-of-care: that which you let through, you are deemed to have published. Liability is an entire separate thing (covered by Section 230) from this. But thankfully in America when it comes to moderation of platforms there is no such thing since it'd completely destroy the entire user content internet (including Hacker News itself fwiw). >Maybe in the US the higher barrier to sue for defamation makes this less risky. There is no liability at all for moderation. >But I see the risk in eg publication of state secrets, illicit content. It Government's job to protect their secrets. If private unconnected individuals get ahold of them they may publish them. This predates the internet entirely and was thoroughly dealt with during the Vietnam War with regards to the Pentagon Papers in the SCOTUS case New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) [0]. And rightly so. As far as illicit content, there is no issue at all. Platforms must of course respond to legal orders, legal take downs, the user who published something illicit is personally liable, and if they themselves publish it then they of course are liable. This has nothing to do with illegal material which by definition is illegal, this has to do with the government attempting for force people to engage with views they do not want to. If someone doesn't like how somebody else speaks on/with their own private soap box, they are free to go make another one (and indeed that is now easier then at any time in human history). ---- 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...
- j_walter 5y ago

renewiltord 5y ago

Excellent article. Another blow struck against those who would restrict free speech.

throwawaysea 5y ago

Social media is just a utility service and should be regulated as such. Just like your power company cannot cut you off, tech companies shouldn't be able to cut you off based on your political views and opinions. Clarence Thomas got it right: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/clarence-thomas-is-right-about-big-tech/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/clarence-thomas-is-ri... I don't get the argument the author of this Tech Dirt article is supporting here. The problem is that a common carrier is engaging in censorship. But the argument seems to be that that very same censorship is justification that social media companies are not common carriers: > User-generated content on social media platforms is screened and sometimes moderated or curated. The State balks that the screening is done by an algorithm, not a person, but whatever the method, social media platforms are not mere conduits. Yes, the problem is that they are not behaving as conduits when they should be, not that they "are not" mere conduits. Then again, Tech Dirt is tremendously biased (look at all the mentions of "Trump" in this article) and so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised at the pandering take in this article.

afrodc_ 5y ago
Why do you think social media platforms should be common carriers? Generally curious.
- hirotuku788 5y ago
  Because hiding behind the "you can just send your tweets in the mail" argument is obviously self serving. Three companies get to control 90% of what people are allowed to say in the digital era. If you don't see how that is a problem for free speech then I can't believe you care about it.