The Daily Escape:
Lupine bloom, Beeks Bight, Folsom Lake, CA â May 2022 photo by Kaptured in Kamera
Weâre back from France where we had fantastic weather, wonderful food and wine, and a break from the loud drumbeat of dystopian American news. One issue that Wrongo followed from afar was the continuing assault on free speech by Americaâs Right Wing.
From Dan Pfeiffer:
âIt seems like every week, Republicans propose, pass, or enact another outrageous, authoritarian, retrograde policy. Book bans, abortion bans, efforts to turn back the clock on marriage equality and contraception. Each is a fleeting political firestorm and then itâs on to the next….amidst this parade of retrograde lawmaking, there is a pattern…â
Despite claiming to be for small government, the Republicans want to dictate the terms of speech in America.
Consider Florida where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis had passed legislation taking away the rights of Facebook, Twitter, and others to ban people from their platforms:
âThe US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on Monday ruled it is unconstitutional for Florida to bar social media companies from banning politicians, in a major victory for tech companies….the court rejected many of the legal arguments that conservative states have been using to justify laws governing the content moderation policies of major tech companies after years of accusations that the tech companies are biased against their political viewpoints.â
The 11th Circuit court found that tech companiesâ moderation decisions are protected by the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from regulating free speech. Interestingly, this comes after a different decision on the same issue by the Texas 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, that allowed a Texas law banning companies from discriminating against people based on their politics to remain in effect.
We now have completely opposite decisions by the 11th Circuit and the 5th Circuit courts on the issue of whether corporations must follow the Constitutionâs First Amendment. This will invariably lead to the Supreme Court weighing in on whether private social media companiesâ content moderation decisions are protected by the First Amendment. From the WaPo:
âSome lawmakers pushing for laws governing online content moderation and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas have argued that tech companies should be regulated as âcommon carriers,â businesses like phone companies that are subject to government regulation because of the essential services they provide.â
But Floridaâs court rejected those arguments, arguing states canât force such restrictions on private company social media platforms. While the phone companies cannot stop callers or calls that may be objectionable, or even illegal, social media companies have different rights. From the Courtâs ruling:
âNeither law nor logic recognizes government authority to strip an entity of its First Amendment rights merely by labeling it a common carrier…â
The “Terms of Service” (TOS) agreements between social media platform companies and their users are a contract. When someone agrees to the TOS, they are saying that they will abide by it. Violating the TOS, whether by Trump, Musk, or some random ideologue, is a violation of contract law.
When the TOS is violated and the violator is suspended or barred from the platform, it doesnât demonstrate bias, or a restriction in free speech. It demonstrates equal treatment. The TOS isnât there only to restrain Conservatives, despite their protests of discrimination.
Florida passes a “don’t say gay” bill to police free speech by public educators in schools. They then pass the law to prevent private companies from policing speech on their platforms. This irony is lost on those who claim theyâre against federal or state overreach unless itâs their Party thatâs doing the overreaching.
The First Amendment says the government cannot punish you for speech (with some exceptions). The same Amendment also protects free associationâmeaning that itâs perfectly legal for private organizations to exercise their freedom of association even while excluding some speech.
Networks like Facebook and Twitter exert a lot of power over the flow of information. They are a primary method of news and expression for millions. That means they must be broadly inclusive and promote healthy discourse. Their business model includes wanting to attract as many users as possible. From Nicholas Grossmann: (emphasis by Wrongo)
âThe big social networksâFacebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Twitterâaim to be the online mainstream, appealing to a wide variety of users and the businesses that sell to them. That requires stopping behavior that isnât illegal, but makes the platform inhospitable, such as hate speech.â
The large private social networks have a responsibility not to let the doctrine of free speech make them give a right of way to bad actors. There is zero reason to cede the concept of free speech to the trolls who are trying to drive people they hate off private social media platforms.
Now we wait to see what Alito, Thomas and the other Conservative Supremes have to say about the limits of Free Speech.
You shouldnât be optimistic about the outcome.
