Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers And Deeply Unfunny ‘Satirist’ Seek To Remove Website 1st Amendment Rights To ‘Protect Free Speech’ – Techdirt

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who heads something called the House Republican Big Tech Task Force has teamed up with Seth Dillon, the CEO of the deeply unfunny conservative Onion wannabe, The Babylon Bee, to whine in the NY Post about how to end big tech censorship of free speech. The answer, apparently, is to remove the 1st Amendment. I only wish I were joking, but thats the crux of their very, very confused suggestion.

Lets start with the basics: Dillons site regularly posts culture-war promoting satire. Because Republican culture wars these days are about shitting on anyone they dislike, or who dares to suggest that merely respecting others is a virtue, many of those stories are not just deeply unfunny, but often pretty fucked up. None of this is surprising, of course. But, the thing about the modern GOP and its culture wars is that its entirely based around pretending to be the victim. Its about never, not once, being willing to take responsibility for your own actions.

So, when the Babylon Bee publishes something dumb that breaks a rule, and they get a minor slap on the wrist for it, they immediately flop down on the ground like a terrible soccer player and roll around about how their free speech has been all censored. It hasnt. Youre relying on someone elses private property. They get to make the rules. And if they decide that you broke their rules, they get to show you the door (or whatever other on-site punishment) they feel is appropriate. This is pretty basic stuff, and actually used to be conservative dogma: private property rights, the rights to freely associate or not with whoever you want under the 1st Amendment, and accepting personal responsibility when you fuck around, were things we were told were core to being a conservative.

No longer (its arguable, of course, if they were ever actually serious about any of that).

There is no free speech issue here. The Babylon Bee has 1st Amendment rights to publish whatever silly nonsense it wants on its own site. It has no right to demand that others host its speech for it. Just as the Babylon Bee does not need to post my hysterically funny satire about Seth Dillon plagiarizing his best jokes by running Onion articles three times through GPT3 AI with the phrase this, but for dumb rubes. Thats freedom of association, Seth. Thats how it works.

Perhaps its no surprise that the CEO of a what if satire were shitty site doesnt understand the 1st Amendment, but youd think that a sitting member of Congress, who actually swore to protect and uphold the Constitution, might have a better idea. Not so for Rep. McMorris Rodgers, who once actually was decent on tech, before apparently realizing that her constituents dont like elected officials from reality, and prefer them to be culture warriors as well.

Anyway, after whining about facing a tiny bit of personal responsibility including, I shit you not, having to be fact checked by Facebook (note to the two of you: fact checking is more speech, its not censorship, you hypocritical oafs) they trot out their solutions.

Big Tech must be held accountable. First, we propose narrowing Section 230 liability protections for Big Tech companies by removing ambiguity in the law which they exploit to suppress and penalize constitutionally protected speech. Our proposal ensures Big Tech is no longer protected if it censors individuals or media outlets or removes factually correct content simply because it doesnt fit its woke narrative.

I mean, holy fuck. There is no excuse in the year 2022 to still be so fucking ignorant of how Section 230 works. Especially if youre in Congress. Narrowing Section 230s liability protections wont lead to less moderation. It will lead to more. The liability protections are what allow websites to feel comfortable hosting 3rd party content. The case that caused Section 230 in the first place, involved Prodigy being held liable for comments in a forum. If you make sites more liable, they are less likely to host whatever nonsense content you want to share on their website.

Second, removing factually correct content whether or not it fits its woke narrative (and, um, no big tech company has a woke narrative) is protected by the 1st Amendment. Content moderation is protected by the 1st Amendment. Dillon doesnt have to publish my unfunny piece. Twitter doesnt need to publish his unfunny piece. Facebook can fact check all it wants even if it gets the facts wrong. Its all thanks to the 1st Amendment.

Taking away 230 protections doesnt change that it just makes websites even LESS likely to host is culture war nonsense.

But McMorris Rodgers and Dillon arent done yet.

Second, we propose requiring quarterly filings to the Federal Trade Commission to keep Big Tech transparent about content moderation. This will allow Congress, the FTC and Americans to know when and why these companies censor content to determine whether its justified. Wed also sunset Section 230 protections after five years, so Congress can reevaluate them if necessary and incentivize Big Tech to treat all content fairly or have their protections revoked.

Again, this is almost certainly unconstitutional. I know some people struggle with the idea of why transparency requirements are an affront to the 1st Amendment, but its pretty straightforward. If Congress ordered Seth Dillon to file his sites editorial policies, including details about what stories they reject and which they promote to determine whether its justified for the site to make those editorial decisions, pretty much everyone would recognize the 1st Amendment concerns.

Demanding anyone justify editorial decisions by filing reports with the government to determine whether [those editorial decisions are] justified is just a blatant attack on free speech and the 1st Amendment.

Sunsetting Section 230 just takes us back to the issue we noted above. Without liability protections, websites are MORE likely to remove content to avoid liability, not less.

This isnt like some big secret. Perhaps Dillon and McMorris Rodgers only get their news from sites like the Babylon Bee, and that helps them not understand how anything works. But, really, thats no excuse.

Third, our proposal requires Big Tech to improve appeals processes for users to challenge moderation decisions and enables people to petition their states attorney general to bring legal action against Big Tech, enhancing users power to challenge censorship. Twitter would be required to notify a user, like the Babylon Bee, through direct communication before taking any censorship action. Big Tech would also be required to give users the option to challenge any censorship decisions with a real person not a bot to disincentivize Big Tech from completely automating its censorship process.

Right, so again, all of that is an affront to the 1st Amendment. Should I be able to petition my states attorney general to bring legal action against the Babylon Bee for failing to publish my truly hilarious article about how Cathy McMorris Rodgers hates the internet so much, she pushed legislation banning communities from building their own broadband networks (really funny stuff, because its true).

Of course not. The 1st Amendment protects websites and their editorial decisions. There is no constitutional cause of action any attorney general could take against a website for their moderation decisions.

As for the appeals process most websites have one. But mandating one would, again, raise serious constitutional issues, as its the government interfering with the editorial process.

And, note, of course, that none of these complaints address the fact that the social media sites that people like Dillon like, including Parler, Gettr, and Truth Social, have far more arbitrary and aggressive content moderation policies (even as they pretend otherwise).

Itll be hilarious even Babylon Bee worthy, if I say so myself if this bill passes, and woke liberals use it to sue Truth Social for taking down truthful content about the January 6th hearings. Cmon, Seth, let me publish that as an article on your site! Or you hate freedom of speech!

Free speech must be cherished and preserved. Its time Big Tech companies uphold American values and become fair stewards of the speech they host.

But the Babylon Bee remains free to be as shitty as before? How is that fair?

Filed Under: 1st amendment, cathy mcmorris rodgers, content moderation, editorial discretion, free speech, section 230, seth dillonCompanies: babylon bee

Go here to see the original:

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers And Deeply Unfunny 'Satirist' Seek To Remove Website 1st Amendment Rights To 'Protect Free Speech' - Techdirt