3 ms·

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?
- rndmize 3y ago
  This is a leap. If they publicly espouse some sort of policy and don't adhere to it, it makes them look hypocritical - but I don't see how this limits their editorial freedoms. They can change the policy, or actually adhere to it. > 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. I mean, I guess? I feel like the same could be said for laws that require worker injury reporting. If at some point in the future it's decided that there should be some regulation around moderation policies (and this seems increasingly inevitable) it would be useful to have some actual data to work off.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
    The moderation policy could even be "whatever the moderator feels like on a given day". That might get them negative publicity, but it's a policy, and satisfies the law.
    - solardev 3y ago
      Yes, but realistically, what's going to happen the moment they post a policy like that? The media jumps on them, (more) advertisers pull out, etc. That wouldn't have happened if they weren't compelled to publish these content decisions upfront.

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?
rndmize 3y ago
This is a leap. If they publicly espouse some sort of policy and don't adhere to it, it makes them look hypocritical - but I don't see how this limits their editorial freedoms. They can change the policy, or actually adhere to it. > 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. I mean, I guess? I feel like the same could be said for laws that require worker injury reporting. If at some point in the future it's decided that there should be some regulation around moderation policies (and this seems increasingly inevitable) it would be useful to have some actual data to work off.
- SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
  The moderation policy could even be "whatever the moderator feels like on a given day". That might get them negative publicity, but it's a policy, and satisfies the law.
  - solardev 3y ago
    Yes, but realistically, what's going to happen the moment they post a policy like that? The media jumps on them, (more) advertisers pull out, etc. That wouldn't have happened if they weren't compelled to publish these content decisions upfront.