Big Tech has a big problem with Florida passing a law that protects politicians from web moderation
- Reference: 1622231408
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/05/28/florida_law_social_media/
- Source link:
SB 7072
[1]PDF
was [2]signed into law on Monday by Republican Party Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, ostensibly to curb content moderation actions that "discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology." This was prompted by the suspension of former President Trump's Facebook and Twitter accounts for [3]inciting violence during the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol.The law, which contains an exemption for theme park operators so as not to inconvenience two politically influential companies operating in the state – The Walt Disney Company and the Universal Studios owner Comcast – was promptly excoriated by US Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) as unconstitutional.
[4]
[5]
[6]
"Following Donald Trump's lead, Republican-led states are determined to pass laws to force websites and apps to host lies, misinformation and other slime, with full knowledge that those laws are unconstitutional," said Wyden in a statement.
"The latest such example out of Florida – which compels online sites to host the speech of politicians – is particularly egregious, and an invitation for extremists, racists and liars to register as political candidates just to keep their posts online."
Wyden said that the First Amendment of the US Constitution makes it clear that states cannot compel private companies to host speech, especially from politicians. The First Amendment only covers government control of speech.
[7]Trump's gone quiet, Parler nuked, Twitter protest never happened: There's an eerie calm – but at what cost?
[8]Parler games: Social network for internet rejects sues Amazon Web Services for pulling plug on hosting
[9]India, Twitter brawl in public as latest content rules begin to bite
[10]Singapore orders social media to correct Indian politician’s allegation of local COVID-19 variant
NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), representing several dozen technology companies, made that same argument in their complaint
[11]PDF
challenging the law."[T]he Act subjects nearly every content-moderation judgment a covered service might make to the State’s regulatory control, saddling those judgments with burdensome new obligations, restrictions, and the ever-present threat of government or private enforcement action," the complaint says. "The Act thus threatens not just the types of experience and community those services can offer, but also how they fundamentally operate."
[12]
Advocacy groups said much the same: "The draconian Florida 'deplatforming' law, SB 7072, is a woefully misguided attempt to punish social media platforms to influence their content moderation decisions," [13]said the Center for Democracy and Technology. "It would make it effectively impossible to combat misinformation, incitement of violence, and hate speech."
NetChoice and the CCIA argue that the law, cast by its backers as a defense against censorship (which US law makes [14]illegal for the government but permits for private actors), simply makes the State the arbiter of online conduct, in violation of the Constitution. And two groups contend the law violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by favoring Disney and Comcast because they own theme parks.
"The law is crony capitalism masquerading as consumer protection," said Carl Szabo, VP and General Counsel of NetChoice in [15]a statement . "Our lawsuit will stop an attempt by the state of Florida to undermine the First Amendment and force social media sites to carry offensive and harmful political messages."
[16]
Szabo said the lawsuit challenges SB 7072 as an effort to discriminate against certain companies and favor businesses like Disney and Comcast.
Via Twitter, Eric Goldman, professor of law at Santa Clara University School of Law, [17]noted the filing of the "expected lawsuit against Florida's unconstitutional social media platform law" and said, "I hope the courts roast the legislature for wasting everyone's time & money." ®
Speaking of social media... The Biden administration has [18]signaled it would like the US government to continue collecting online handles from visa applicants.
Get our [19]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_s7072er.DOCX&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=7072&Session=2021
[2] https://www.flgov.com/2021/05/24/governor-ron-desantis-signs-bill-to-stop-the-censorship-of-floridians-by-big-tech/
[3] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YLFn@H@bCpv9nJarDpVHcAAAAEY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YLFn@H@bCpv9nJarDpVHcAAAAEY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YLFn@H@bCpv9nJarDpVHcAAAAEY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/11/trump_social_media/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/11/parler_sues_aws/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/28/india_vs_twitter/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/21/singapore_protection_from_online_falsehoods_act/
[11] https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/NetChoice-CCIA-Complaint-for-Declaratory-and-Injunctive-Relief-5.27.21.pdf
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YLFn@H@bCpv9nJarDpVHcAAAAEY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://twitter.com/CenDemTech/status/1397259721887916038?s=20
[14] https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship
[15] https://netchoice.org/media-press/netchoice-and-ccia-sue-florida-unconstitutional-social-media-bill-circumvents-rights-afforded-under-the-first-amendment/
[16] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YLFn@H@bCpv9nJarDpVHcAAAAEY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[17] https://twitter.com/ericgoldman/status/1397982964898668545
[18] https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/biden-administration-continues-to-defend-social-media-registration-requirement-in-court
[19] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
California
You mean Florida, right?
C.
Re: California
Oops, I have no idea why I typed California, Florida is clearly mentioned several times.
Hopefully that was the only reason for the downvotes ;-)
By their popularity and gratuity they are essentially public companies...
If they are private why do the members not pay a membership fee?
As such, either members hold be vetted beforehand or all members should have the same rights regardless of their politics. Unless of course these companies start to clearly announce their political motivations.
Not quite.
"If they are private why do the members not pay a membership fee?"
Private in the sense that they are private property not private as in exclusive or of restricted membership.
Do try and keep up.
How much does a theme park cost?
Surely Twitter and Facebook can afford to setup a small theme park somewhere? I for one would love to see people ride on the Twittersphere.
Re: How much does a theme park cost?
It's a lot cheaper if you have a bunch of shell companies and proxy buyers buy the land before the average Joe figures out that something big is coming. But, yeah it's still within the realm of possibility for the likes of Larry or Jeff, let alone their businesses. If they throw in a nice golf-course with private helipad, so much the better.
Oh it's easy ...
You just declare that people acting in an "official political capacity" have to have a special account that identifies them as such together with their affiliation and that they must pay per post for the privilege. Otherwise they are no different from anybody else.
My house, my rules, it's a business after all :-)
Health Warning?
It would be an enormous effort to correct posts, or just warn viewers of specific incorrect statements in politicians' posts, but I suppose the big companies like FaceBook and Twitter could easily mark out each politician's output with:
WARNING - WE ARE OBLIGED BY FLORIDA LAW TO ALLOW THIS POLITICIAN TO POST ON OUR SITE - ANY FACTUAL INACCURACY IS ENTIRELY THIS POLITICIAN'S RESPONSIBILITY AND NOT OUR FAULT - YOU SHOULD CHECK CAREFULLY BEFORE BELIEVING ANYTHING THIS POLITICIAN TELLS YOU
if they have been found to post untruths, supposition or downright lies. Who could possibly object to that?
IANAL, but it seems like the California governor is trying to control free speech by telling the private companies what is and isn't acceptable.
Private companies can't violate the first Amendment, as they're not Government. It's their platform, and they don't have to give anyone a soapbox to preach from.