When private tech companies moderate speech online, is the government ultimately responsible for their choices? This appears to be the latest argument advanced by those criticizing Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996sometimes known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. But upon closer scrutiny, this argument breaks down completely.
In a new Wall Street Journal op-ed, Philip Hamburger argues that the government, in working through private companies, is abridging the freedom of speech. Weve long respected Hamburger, a professor at Columbia Law School, as the staunchest critic of overreach by administrative agencies. Just last year, his organization (the New Civil Liberties Alliance) and ours (TechFreedom) filed a joint amicus brief to challenge such abuse. But the path proposed in Hamburgers op-ed would lead to a regime for coercing private companies to carry speech that is hateful or even downright dangerous. The storming of the U.S. Capitol should make clear once and for all why all major tech services ban hate speech, misinformation and talk of violence: Words can have serious consequencesin this case, five deaths, in addition to two subsequent suicides by Capitol police officers.
Hamburger claims that there is little if any federal appellate precedent upholding censorship by the big tech companies. But multiple courts have applied the First Amendment and Section 230 to protect content moderation, including against claims of unfairness or political bias. Hamburgers fundamental error is claiming that Section 230 gives websites a license to censor with impunity. Contrary to this popular misunderstanding, it is the First Amendmentnot Section 230which enables content moderation. Since 1998, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that digital media enjoy the First Amendment rights as newspapers. When a state tried to impose fairness mandates on newspapers in 1974, forcing them to carry third-party speech, no degree of alleged consolidation of the power to inform the American people and shape public opinion in the newspaper business could persuade the Supreme Court to uphold such mandates. The court has upheld fairness mandates only for one mediumbroadcasting, in 1969and only because the government licenses use of publicly owned airwaves, a form of state action.
Websites have the same constitutional right as newspapers to choose whether or not to carry, publish or withdraw the expression of others. Section 230 did not create or modify that right. The law merely ensures that courts will quickly dismiss lawsuits that would have been dismissed anyway on First Amendment groundsbut with far less hassle, stress and expense. At the scale of the billions of pieces of content posted by users every day, that liability shield is essential to ensure that website owners arent forced to abandon their right to moderate content by a tsunami of meritless but costly litigation.
Hamburger focuses on Section 230(c)(2)(A), which states: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of ... any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. But nearly all lawsuits based on content moderation are resolved under Section 230(c)(1), which protects websites and users from being held liable as the publisher of information provided by others. In the 1997 Zeran decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that this provision barred lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publishers traditional editorial functionssuch as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content (emphasis added).
The Trump administration argued that these courts all misread the statute because their interpretation of 230(c)(1) has rendered 230(c)(2)(A) superfluous. But the courts have explained exactly how these two provisions operate differently and complement each other: 230(c)(1) protects websites only if they are not responsible, even in part, for the development of the content at issue. If, for example, they edit that content in ways that contribute to its illegality (say, deleting not in John is not a murderer), they lose their 230(c)(1) protection from suit. Because Congress aimed to remove all potential disincentives to moderate content, it included 230(c)(2)(A) as a belt-and-suspenders protection that would apply even in this situation. Hamburger neglects all of this and never grapples with what it means for 230(c)(1) to protect websites from being treated as the publisher of information created by others.
Hamburger makes another crucial error: He claims Section 230 has privatized censorship because 230(c)(2)(A) makes explicit that it is immunizing companies from liability for speech restrictions that would be unconstitutional if lawmakers themselves imposed them. But in February 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that YouTube was not a state actor and therefore could not possibly have violated the First Amendment rights of the conservative YouTube channel Prager University by flagging some of its videos for restricted mode, which parents, schools and libraries can turn on to limit childrens access to sensitive topics.
Hamburger insists otherwise, alluding to the Supreme Courts 1946 decision in Marsh v. Alabama: The First Amendment protects Americans even in privately owned public forums, such as company towns. But in 2019, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for all five conservative justices, noted that in order to be transformed into a state actor, a private entity must be performing a function that is traditionally and exclusively performed by the government: [M]erely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints. In fact, Marsh has been read very narrowly by the Supreme Court, which has declined to extend its holding on multiple occasions and certainly has never applied it to any media company.
Hamburger also claims that Big Tech companies are akin to common carriers. Hes right that the law ordinarily obliges common carriers to serve all customers on terms that are fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory. But simply being wildly popular does not transform something into a common carrier service. Common carriage regulation protects consumers by ensuring that services that hold themselves out as serving all comers equally dont turn around and charge higher prices to certain users. Conservatives may claim thats akin to social media services saying theyre politically neutral when pressed by lawmakers at hearings, but the analogy doesnt work. Every social media service makes clear up front that access to the service is contingent on complying with community standards, and the website reserves the discretion to decide how to enforce those standardsas the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit noted recently in upholding the dismissal of a lawsuit by far-right personality Laura Loomer over her Twitter ban. In other words, social media are inherently edited services.
Consider the Federal Communications Commissions 2015 Open Internet Order, which classified broadband service as a common carrier service insofar as an internet service provider (ISP) promised connectivity to substantially all Internet endpoints. Kavanaugh, then an appellate judge, objected that this infringed the First Amendment rights of ISPs. Upholding the FCCs net neutrality rules, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit explained that the FCCs rules would not apply to an ISP holding itself out as providing something other than a neutral, indiscriminate pathwayi.e., an ISP making sufficiently clear to potential customers that it provides a filtered service involving the ISPs exercise of editorial intervention. Social media services make that abundantly clear. And while consumers reasonably expect that their broadband service will connect them to all lawful content, they also know that social media sites wont let you post everything you want.
Hamburger is on surer footing when commenting on federalism and constitutional originalism: [W]hen a statute regulating speech rests on the power to regulate commerce, there are constitutional dangers, and ambiguities in the statute should be read narrowly. But by now, his mistake should be obvious: Section 230 doesnt regulat[e] speech. In fact, it does the opposite: It says the government wont get involved in online speech and wont provide a means to sue websites for their refusal to host content.
Hamburger doubles down by claiming that Section 230 allows the government to set the censorship agenda. But neither immunity provision imposes any agenda at all; both leave it entirely to websites to decide what content to remove. Section 230(c)(1) does this by protecting all decisions made in the capacity of a publisher. Section 230(c)(2)(A) does this by providing an illustrative list of categories (obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing) and then adding the intentionally broad catchall: or otherwise objectionable. Both are coextensive with the First Amendments protection of editorial discretion.
Hamburger argues for a narrow reading of 230(c)(2)(A), which would exclude moderating content for any reason that does not fall into one of those categories or because of its viewpoint. He claims that this will allow state legislatures to adopt civil-rights statutes protecting freedom of speech from the tech companies. And he reminds readers about the dangers of the government co-opting private actors to suppress free speech: Some Southern sheriffs, long ago, used to assure Klansmen that they would face no repercussions for suppressing the speech of civil-rights marchers. This analogy fails for many reasons, especially that those sheriffs flouted laws requiring them to prosecute those Klansmen. That is markedly and obviously different from content moderation, which is protected by the First Amendment.
Ironically, Hamburgers proposal would require the government take the side of those spreading hate and falsehoods online. Under his narrow interpretation of Section 230, the law would not protect the removal of Holocaust denial, use of racial epithets or the vast expanse of speech thatwhile constitutionally protectedisnt anything Hamburger, or any decent person, would allow in his own living room. Nor, for example, would it protect removal of hate speech about Christians or any other religious group. Websites would bear the expense and hassle of fighting lawsuits over moderating content that did not fit squarely into the categories mentioned in 230(c)(2)(A).
Perversely, the law would favor certain kinds of content moderation decisions over others, protecting websites from lawsuits over removing pornography or profanity, but not from litigation over moderating false claims about election results or vaccines or conspiracy theories about, say, Jewish space lasers or Satanist pedophile cannibal cults. But if Hamburgers argument is that Section 230 unconstitutionally encourages private actors to do what the government could not, how does favoring moderation of some types of constitutionally protected speech over others address this complaint? This solution makes sense only if the real criticism isnt of the idea of content moderation, or its constitutionality, but rather that social media platforms arent moderating content according to the critics preferences.
Hamburger is a constitutional originalist, and he invokes the Framers understandings of the First Amendment: Originally, the Constitutions broadest protection for free expression lay in Congresss limited power. But theres nothing remotely originalist about his conclusion. His reading of Section 230 would turn Congress shall make no law... into a way for the government to pressure private media to carry the most odious speech imaginable.
Continue reading here:
The Wall Street Journal Misreads Section 230 and the First Amendment - Lawfare
- You're Wrong About the 1st Amendment - The Independent | News Events Opinion More - The Independent | SUindependent.com [Last Updated On: July 6th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 6th, 2020]
- Montco commissioner accused of violating the First Amendment by blocking opposing users on social media - KYW Newsradio 1060 [Last Updated On: July 6th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 6th, 2020]
- Trump attacks core US values at Rushmore. Disagree with him, you're an enemy of the state. - USA TODAY [Last Updated On: July 6th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 6th, 2020]
- The Indy Explains: Your First Amendment rights as a protester - The Nevada Independent [Last Updated On: July 6th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 6th, 2020]
- Trump's political NDAs are an abomination to the First Amendment. - Slate [Last Updated On: July 6th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 6th, 2020]
- First Amendment on the street | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item [Last Updated On: July 6th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 6th, 2020]
- Readers on the 1st amendment, blackface and 'Law & Order' - Los Angeles Times [Last Updated On: July 6th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 6th, 2020]
- Strictly Legal: Partial Victory for the First Amendment in Trump Book Dispute - The Cincinnati Enquirer [Last Updated On: July 9th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 9th, 2020]
- Movie Theaters Sue New Jersey Claiming First Amendment Right to Reopen - Variety [Last Updated On: July 9th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 9th, 2020]
- The First Amendment and alternative proteins - Beef Magazine [Last Updated On: July 9th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 9th, 2020]
- Where Two or More Are Gathered, the First Amendment Should Protect Them - ChristianityToday.com [Last Updated On: July 9th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 9th, 2020]
- The Class of Special Rights Called the First Amendment - National Review [Last Updated On: July 9th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 9th, 2020]
- First Amendment Bright Line in the Digital Age - Courthouse News Service [Last Updated On: July 9th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 9th, 2020]
- RCFP, NPPA, CPJ to train journalists covering 2020 political conventions - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press [Last Updated On: July 18th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 18th, 2020]
- The Right Call On The Invocation - Editorial | Editorials - CapeNews.net [Last Updated On: July 18th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 18th, 2020]
- wraps up 5-year FOIA battle with Justice Department - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press [Last Updated On: July 18th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 18th, 2020]
- Napolitano: A brief history of the freedom of speech in America - Daily Herald [Last Updated On: July 18th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 18th, 2020]
- Watch | Can states ban the display of the Confederate flag? in 'Legally Speaking' - WKYC.com [Last Updated On: July 18th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 18th, 2020]
- Editorial A flushtrated community: Potsdam trampling on First Amendment rights of toilet artist - NNY360 [Last Updated On: July 18th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 18th, 2020]
- Second Circuit Wrecks All Sorts Of First Amendment Protections To Keep Lawsuit Against Joy Reid Alive - Techdirt [Last Updated On: July 18th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 18th, 2020]
- John Bolton Gambles That Constitution Will Save Profits on Book That Was Embarrassing to the President - Law & Crime [Last Updated On: July 18th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 18th, 2020]
- Ex-Baltimore mayor fires back at Hogan criticism of her response to 2015 riots: 'Easy to point the finger' - Fox News [Last Updated On: July 18th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 18th, 2020]
- COVID-19: Our Failures and the Path to Correction - northernexpress.com [Last Updated On: July 18th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 18th, 2020]
- Opinion: Blake Fontenay: Buts on the road to censorship - The Daily Camera [Last Updated On: July 18th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 18th, 2020]
- Two Judges and the Williamsburg Ghost - Courthouse News Service [Last Updated On: July 18th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 18th, 2020]
- First 5: Fighting over the meaning of First Amendment freedoms - Salina Post [Last Updated On: July 18th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 18th, 2020]
- Is satire in political cartoons fully protected? Ask the lawyer - The Daily Breeze [Last Updated On: July 18th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 18th, 2020]
- Trump wants to have a 'big rally' in Michigan, says he isn't allowed - The Detroit News [Last Updated On: July 19th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 19th, 2020]
- US Army eSports team accused of violating First Amendment Act: Report - Republic World - Republic World [Last Updated On: July 19th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 19th, 2020]
- Gene Policinski: Our rights to speak, assembly and seek change have limits - The Mercury [Last Updated On: July 19th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 19th, 2020]
- AG Rosenblum: Feds operating with no transparency - KOIN.com [Last Updated On: July 19th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 19th, 2020]
- Protesters Gather Near Mayor's Home Following Clash With Police in Grant Park - WTTW News [Last Updated On: July 20th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2020]
- More conferences cancel fall sports and other COVID-19 news - Inside Higher Ed [Last Updated On: July 20th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2020]
- First Thing: American scientists wade into politics with a Trump rebuke - The Guardian [Last Updated On: July 20th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2020]
- How the Portland Secret Police Happened - The Bulwark [Last Updated On: July 20th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2020]
- By The Numbers - thepaper24-7.com [Last Updated On: July 20th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2020]
- FIRST FIVE: Fighting over the meaning of First Amendment freedoms - hays Post [Last Updated On: July 20th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2020]
- This Week in Technology + Press Freedom: July 19, 2020 - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press [Last Updated On: July 20th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2020]
- Outside the Outbreak: Iran executes man convicted of spying for US, nuclear weapons hot topic 75 years after test - Universe.byu.edu [Last Updated On: July 20th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2020]
- Portland Protesters Gassed After Setting Fire at Courthouse - gvwire.com [Last Updated On: July 20th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2020]
- Providence City Councilmans property vandalized, This was not a political statement adherent to the spirit of our first amendment - The Providence... [Last Updated On: July 20th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2020]
- Philly rebuffs Trump threat to send in feds over protests - Billy Penn [Last Updated On: July 20th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2020]
- Churchill: Troy preacher has the right to offend - Beaumont Enterprise [Last Updated On: July 20th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2020]
- My View: In Provincetown, strange views of the First Amendment - Wicked Local Provincetown [Last Updated On: July 20th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2020]
- Army esports team denies accusations of violating First Amendment, offering fake giveaways - ArmyTimes.com [Last Updated On: July 20th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2020]
- Churchill: Troy preacher has the right to offend - Times Union [Last Updated On: July 20th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2020]
- Legacy Acquisition Corp. Terminates its Amended and Restated Share Exchange Agreement with Blue Valor Limited and Seeks a New Target - Business Wire [Last Updated On: July 21st, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 21st, 2020]
- Trumps Legal Justification for the Abduction of Portland Protesters Is Absurd - Slate [Last Updated On: July 21st, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 21st, 2020]
- Our View: We should demand that they stop - Daily Astorian [Last Updated On: July 21st, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 21st, 2020]
- Staff column: the Wide World of Politics, in Brighton - Brighton Standard-Blade [Last Updated On: July 21st, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 21st, 2020]
- First Amendment | Contents & Supreme Court Interpretations ... [Last Updated On: July 21st, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 21st, 2020]
- The Protean Progressive Free Speech Clause - Forbes [Last Updated On: July 21st, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 21st, 2020]
- New Developments in COVID-19 Litigation for New York City Landlords: Saving Grace or Hail Mary? - JD Supra [Last Updated On: July 22nd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 22nd, 2020]
- Reclaim Idaho: Court delays would leave K-12 initiative 'dead in the water' - Idaho EdNews [Last Updated On: July 22nd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 22nd, 2020]
- VERIFY: The Fourth Amendment has nothing to do with wearing masks at a grocery store - WUSA9.com [Last Updated On: July 22nd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 22nd, 2020]
- Why Reforms to Section 230 Could Radically Change How You Use the Internet - NBC New York [Last Updated On: July 22nd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 22nd, 2020]
- VERIFY: The Fourth Amendment has nothing to do with wearing masks at a grocery store - WBIR.com [Last Updated On: July 22nd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 22nd, 2020]
- LMPD Blues: Civil disobedience and abuse of authority - Louisville Eccentric Observer [Last Updated On: July 22nd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 22nd, 2020]
- Access to Public Health Information in the Age of COVID-19 - Columbia University [Last Updated On: July 22nd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 22nd, 2020]
- How The First Amendment Can Fight BLM Messages - ValueWalk [Last Updated On: July 22nd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 22nd, 2020]
- Why Reforms to Section 230 Could Radically Change How You Use the Internet - NBC Connecticut [Last Updated On: July 22nd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 22nd, 2020]
- Government Denies Cohen Was Imprisoned to Stop Trump Book - The New York Times [Last Updated On: July 22nd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 22nd, 2020]
- Lawyers Demand the Army Stop Violating First Amendment on Twitch - VICE [Last Updated On: July 22nd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 22nd, 2020]
- Kevin Kiermaier will stand for anthem, supports Rays teammates who wont - Tampa Bay Times [Last Updated On: July 22nd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 22nd, 2020]
- What You Need To Know About The Unreleased Dallas Police Report After Protests - KERA News [Last Updated On: July 22nd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 22nd, 2020]
- Why Reforms to Section 230 Could Radically Change How You Use the Internet - NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth [Last Updated On: July 22nd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 22nd, 2020]
- Constitution doesn't have a problem with mask mandates - Sumter Item [Last Updated On: July 23rd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 23rd, 2020]
- First Amendment Zone: How to protest (or not) at the RNC in Jacksonville - The Florida Times-Union [Last Updated On: July 23rd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 23rd, 2020]
- Army Pauses Twitch Game Streaming After First Amendment Claim - The New York Times [Last Updated On: July 23rd, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 23rd, 2020]
- New Hanover Sheriff's Office investigating death of UNCW Professor Mike Adams - Port City Daily [Last Updated On: July 24th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 24th, 2020]
- Louisville police plan for militia group protest this weekend - ABC 36 News - WTVQ [Last Updated On: July 24th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 24th, 2020]
- The Constitution doesn't have a problem with mask mandates - The Conversation US [Last Updated On: July 24th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 24th, 2020]
- Judge Orders Michael Cohen To Be Released From Prison, Saying His First Amendment Rights Were Violated - Forbes [Last Updated On: July 24th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 24th, 2020]
- Irvine Mayor Sued Over Facebook Blocking And Deleting Of Comments - Voice of OC [Last Updated On: July 24th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 24th, 2020]
- The lawlessness of Trump's 'law and order' - The Week [Last Updated On: July 24th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 24th, 2020]
- EXPANDED: County adopts resolution affirming Second Amendment | National News - KPVI News 6 [Last Updated On: July 24th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 24th, 2020]
- LETTER Understand the gravity of free speech - Trumbull Times [Last Updated On: July 24th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 24th, 2020]
- The Constitution doesn't have a problem with mask mandates - Huron Daily Tribune [Last Updated On: July 24th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 24th, 2020]
- A Newspaper's Dilemma on the First Amendment Debate - Newport This Week [Last Updated On: July 24th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 24th, 2020]
- Trump to Throw Out First Amendment at Yankee Stadium - The New Yorker [Last Updated On: July 24th, 2020] [Originally Added On: July 24th, 2020]