6 ms·

The Texas and Florida laws are not equivalent to the CA law: Texas HB 20 prohibits the censorship of content based on viewpoint Florida SB 7072 ... prohibits

The Texas and Florida laws are not equivalent to the CA law: Texas HB 20 prohibits the censorship of content based on viewpoint Florida SB 7072 ... prohibits platforms from removing certain types of accounts. So both laws require companies to engage in a type of speech. The CA law does no such thing: it just requires companies to disclose their policy and how it was applied.

dylan604 3y ago
If these "laws" are deemed valid under protection from the first amendment, then why are the laws necessary anyways? Why not just go after the offender for violating the first amendment?
- solardev 3y ago
  The states don't have the time and money to go after millions of individuals, so they try to curtail it at the provider side instead. Also to send a message. A lot of it is just political virtue signaling. (edit: sorry, I misread the parent. Individuals cannot violate the 1A, only governments can)
- Chabsff 3y ago
  It's necessary because some (let's face it, X) social media companies are suspected of lying (aka engaging in fraud) to consumers by claiming that they are taking aggressive action against hate speech while not actually doing so. Sure, they could just take them to court for that fraud and get that information via discovery, but just compelling companies to publicly disclose the info bypasses all that and puts the decision making back into the hands of the consumers. And what is more American than that?
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but only the government can violate the 1st amendment, not companies or individuals. Note that that doesn't mean a company cannot violate a law with a basis in free speech. The 1st amendment isn't the only law when it comes to this - this is where state laws step in.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    >only the government can violate the 1st amendment how do you figure this to be true?
    - jonas21 3y ago
      Uh... because that's literally what the First Amendment says? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The 14th amendment later extended this to apply to state governments as well - but still only governments.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        But a social platform can very much violate someone's first amendment rights. Which is what all of this hubbub is about. So we're saying that because we've said specifically gov't can't, we then now have to go back and make a law that says "neither than corporations, other citizens, and any other party" kind of legally worded something?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        solardev 3y ago
        There might be a misunderstanding here? The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) specifically applies to limiting the powers of the federal government. It doesn't grant rights to individuals, it takes away powers from Congress. It doesn't protect you against other citizens, but against government overreach. A company can't violate someone's free speech (or other rights) because it's not the government. It literally isn't under the purview of the amendments. If it does something illegal, that is become that act is made illegal under some other code, not because of the bill of rights. They can be prosecuted for criminal or civil violations, but it wouldn't be a constitutional issue unless the government is the one doing it. If a social media site wants to silence you, too bad. If the government wants to silence you, that's a big deal. https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/what-first-amendment-protections-exist-for-speech-on-social-media/ https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/wha... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights (Edit: However, your argument isn't unheard of. Here's one opinion from the American Bar Association arguing the same thing -- that the 1A ought to apply to privately run public forums too: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/in-the-age-of-socia-media-first-amendment/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...)
solardev 3y ago
IANAL, but I think it's a slippery slope that may fall too close to prior restraint. It is specifically asking a private entity to report on what it considers hate speech (which itself is still 1A protected), etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint?wprov=sfla1
- rgbrenner 3y ago
  Reporting on actions is the same as prohibiting an action? Please elaborate on how this works.
  - solardev 3y ago
    Having a published content moderation policy would presumably mean that companies are expected to abide by it, which limits their editorial freedoms. Asking a company to be consistent in its approach to speech is still a restriction on its speech. Most people and companies are hypocritical and self-serving when opportunities arise, but that's still protected. Maybe the reporting law doesn't itself prohibit a company from acting against its published terms, but it sure creates a database that could easily be weaponized against them by a future law or unchecked executive order.
    - PopAlongKid 3y ago
      > it sure creates a database that could easily be weaponized against them by a future law or unchecked executive order. Which is clearly not "prior restraint".
      - solardev 3y ago
        It might be close enough to be considered a chilling effect? It's ultimately up to debate by high-powered lawyers. I don't think ANY 1A issue is ever clear-cut... It's often the case that if a law were to have the potential to chill speech that would otherwise be expressed or not expressed (and I think this law falls under that category), it's open to questioning at least https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/897/chilling-effect https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/897/chilling-ef... I don't know how this will ultimately turn out... maybe California will win, but it's at least unclear enough to be worth a legal debate, I think?

dylan604 3y ago

If these "laws" are deemed valid under protection from the first amendment, then why are the laws necessary anyways? Why not just go after the offender for violating the first amendment?

solardev 3y ago
The states don't have the time and money to go after millions of individuals, so they try to curtail it at the provider side instead. Also to send a message. A lot of it is just political virtue signaling. (edit: sorry, I misread the parent. Individuals cannot violate the 1A, only governments can)
Chabsff 3y ago
It's necessary because some (let's face it, X) social media companies are suspected of lying (aka engaging in fraud) to consumers by claiming that they are taking aggressive action against hate speech while not actually doing so. Sure, they could just take them to court for that fraud and get that information via discovery, but just compelling companies to publicly disclose the info bypasses all that and puts the decision making back into the hands of the consumers. And what is more American than that?
bcrosby95 3y ago
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but only the government can violate the 1st amendment, not companies or individuals. Note that that doesn't mean a company cannot violate a law with a basis in free speech. The 1st amendment isn't the only law when it comes to this - this is where state laws step in.
- dylan604 3y ago
  >only the government can violate the 1st amendment how do you figure this to be true?
  - jonas21 3y ago
    Uh... because that's literally what the First Amendment says? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The 14th amendment later extended this to apply to state governments as well - but still only governments.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      But a social platform can very much violate someone's first amendment rights. Which is what all of this hubbub is about. So we're saying that because we've said specifically gov't can't, we then now have to go back and make a law that says "neither than corporations, other citizens, and any other party" kind of legally worded something?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - solardev 3y ago
        There might be a misunderstanding here? The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) specifically applies to limiting the powers of the federal government. It doesn't grant rights to individuals, it takes away powers from Congress. It doesn't protect you against other citizens, but against government overreach. A company can't violate someone's free speech (or other rights) because it's not the government. It literally isn't under the purview of the amendments. If it does something illegal, that is become that act is made illegal under some other code, not because of the bill of rights. They can be prosecuted for criminal or civil violations, but it wouldn't be a constitutional issue unless the government is the one doing it. If a social media site wants to silence you, too bad. If the government wants to silence you, that's a big deal. https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/what-first-amendment-protections-exist-for-speech-on-social-media/ https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/wha... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights (Edit: However, your argument isn't unheard of. Here's one opinion from the American Bar Association arguing the same thing -- that the 1A ought to apply to privately run public forums too: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/in-the-age-of-socia-media-first-amendment/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...)

solardev 3y ago

IANAL, but I think it's a slippery slope that may fall too close to prior restraint. It is specifically asking a private entity to report on what it considers hate speech (which itself is still 1A protected), etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint?wprov=sfla1

rgbrenner 3y ago
Reporting on actions is the same as prohibiting an action? Please elaborate on how this works.
- solardev 3y ago
  Having a published content moderation policy would presumably mean that companies are expected to abide by it, which limits their editorial freedoms. Asking a company to be consistent in its approach to speech is still a restriction on its speech. Most people and companies are hypocritical and self-serving when opportunities arise, but that's still protected. Maybe the reporting law doesn't itself prohibit a company from acting against its published terms, but it sure creates a database that could easily be weaponized against them by a future law or unchecked executive order.
  - PopAlongKid 3y ago
    > it sure creates a database that could easily be weaponized against them by a future law or unchecked executive order. Which is clearly not "prior restraint".
    - solardev 3y ago
      It might be close enough to be considered a chilling effect? It's ultimately up to debate by high-powered lawyers. I don't think ANY 1A issue is ever clear-cut... It's often the case that if a law were to have the potential to chill speech that would otherwise be expressed or not expressed (and I think this law falls under that category), it's open to questioning at least https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/897/chilling-effect https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/897/chilling-ef... I don't know how this will ultimately turn out... maybe California will win, but it's at least unclear enough to be worth a legal debate, I think?