More Than Two Thirds Of States Are Pushing Highly Controversial (And Likely Unconstitutional) Bills To Moderate Speech Online

from the the-moral-panic-to-end-all-moral-panics dept

Over the last year and a half, we’ve had plenty of stories about how various state legislators are shoving each other aside to pass laws to try to regulate speech online. Of course, that’s generally not how they put it. They claim that they’re “regulating social media,” and making lots of (highly questionable) assumptions insisting that social media is somehow bad. And this is coming from both sides of the traditional political spectrum. Republicans are pushing bills to compel websites to host speech, while Democrats are pushing bills to compel websites to censor speech. And sometimes they team up to push horrible, dangerous, unconstitutional legislation “for the children.”

Over at Politco, Rebecca Kern has done an amazing job cataloging this rush by state legislators across the country to push these laws — almost all of which are likely unconstitutional. It’s depressing as anything, and in a few decades when we look back and talk about the incredibly ridiculous moral panic over social media, maps like these will be front and center:

You should read Kern’s full article, as it breaks the various bills down into four categories: banning censorship, reporting ‘hateful’ content, regulating algorithms, and mandating transparency — including interesting discussions on each category.

Of course, as you’ll note in the chart above, while Texas, Florida, and New York are the only states so far to pass such laws, the Florida and Texas ones are both on hold due to courts recognizing their problems. While New York’s only passed bill (it has more in the hopper) perhaps isn’t quite as bad as Florida’s and Texas’, it’s still awful and hopefully someone will challenge the constitutionality of it as well.

However, part of the problem is that for the apparently dwindling collection of people who still believe in free speech online, all of these bills (and many of the states listed above aren’t doing just one bill, but multiple crazy bills all at once) are creating a sort of distributed denial of service attack on free speech advocates.

We simply can’t respond to every crazy new bill in every crazy state legislature trying to regulate speech online. We (and here I mean literally us at the Copia Institute) are trying to help educate and explain to policymakers all across the country how dangerous and backwards most of these bills are. But we’re a tiny, tiny team with extremely little resources.

Yet, at the same time, many in the media (without noting that they compete with social media for ad dollars) seem to be cheering on many of these bills.

And, speaking of “free speech advocates,” it is beyond disappointing in Kern’s article to see the Knight First Amendment Institute, which I’ve worked with many times, and which I respect, quoted as supporting some of these clearly unconstitutional bills. There seems to have been an unfortunate shift in the Institute’s support for free speech over the last year or so. Rather than “protecting” the 1st Amendment, it has repeatedly staked out weird positions that seem designed to chip away at the 1st Amendment protections that are so important.

For example, they apparently see the ability to regulate algorithms as possibly not violating the 1st Amendment, which is crazy:

However, Wilkens, of the Knight First Amendment Institute, said that while the bill may “implicate the First Amendment, it doesn’t mean that it violates the First Amendment.” He said that while it’s still up for interpretation, the legislation – if it became law – may “be held constitutional because the state’s interest here in protecting young girls seems to be a very strong interest.”

I’m not going to go deep on why this is disconnected from reality — both the idea that the bill being discussed (California’s AB 2048) would “protect young girls” (it wouldn’t) and that it might be constitutional (it obviously is not), but it’s distressing beyond belief that yet another institution that has taken in many millions of dollars (way more than Copia has received in nearly 25 years of existence) is now fighting against the 1st Amendment rather than protecting it.

There’s a war going on against online speech these days, and much of it is happening in state houses, where it is very, very difficult for the remaining advocates of online speech to be heard. And it’s not helping that others who claim to be supporters of free speech are out there actively undermining it.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “More Than Two Thirds Of States Are Pushing Highly Controversial (And Likely Unconstitutional) Bills To Moderate Speech Online”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
50 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

And if you would only realize that there’s more to freedom of speech than what the 1st Amendment requires, we might get somewhere.

As a wonk, you want to tell people that the viewpoint-based censorship being carried out by the large platforms is a proper exercise of their 1st Amendment rights, and represents freedom of speech (for the platforms). But unsurprisingly, people who are being silenced don’t take that wonky position. They feel, correctly, that their freedom to speak has been taken away, regardless of whether the platforms have a legal right to do so. In fact, such a legal right makes everything worse; it tells people that they have no recourse in the law or the Constitution to avoid being silenced. And yet, somehow, you expect people to be satisfied with this.

Once you allow the camel’s nose in the tent, your explanations about why this censorship is OK but that one isn’t fall on deaf ears. People are just going to say that if it’s OK for that speech to be censored, then I want this speech that I hate to be censored too.

Once upon a time, before liberals started hating freedom as much as conservatives do, organizations like the ACLU understood that they should support the freedom of everyone to speak. Sadly, that is no longer the case, and the number of supporters of freedom keeps dwindling. Perhaps organizations like FIRE can keep the torch burning (heh!) but I’m not hopeful.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re:

And if you would only realize that there’s more to freedom of speech than what the 1st Amendment requires, we might get somewhere.

You argument can be used on any law you don’t like and if we reduce your argument to it’s logical conclusions it comes down to the fact that if someone doesn’t like a law they should be free to ignore it even if it means they infringe the rights of others.

Either you believe in the constitution and how it applies to everyone equally or you don’t believe in it and want to burn it down so you can behave in any manner you wish without repercussions as you have alluded to many times.

As a wonk, you want to tell people that the viewpoint-based censorship being carried out by the large platforms is a proper exercise of their 1st Amendment rights, and represents freedom of speech (for the platforms).

How to spot the dishonest, they always put words in other peoples mouths.

But unsurprisingly, people who are being silenced don’t take that wonky position. They feel, correctly, that their freedom to speak has been taken away, regardless of whether the platforms have a legal right to do so.

People feel all kind of things being unfair, like that Bob the neighbor have a new car and a beautiful wife, like Musk is a billionaire, like the cousin who had a two week vacation on Bahamas. The amount of people being “silenced” are miniscule compared to everyone else who actually understands that bad behavior have consequences. That you, a self avowed bigot, have been booted from many platforms is just a consequence of you being a bigot.

Once you allow the camel’s nose in the tent, your explanations about why this censorship is OK but that one isn’t fall on deaf ears. People are just going to say that if it’s OK for that speech to be censored, then I want this speech that I hate to be censored too.

Once you let the fascists, the assholes, the bigots, the white supremacists and the nazi’s into the tent you’re fucked. They can fucking erect their own tent, but they are so addicted to an audience they will through any means force themselves into other people’s tents while screaming about the same rights they want to deny others.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Realization is a hell of a thing, man.

if you would only realize that there’s more to freedom of speech than what the 1st Amendment requires, we might get somewhere

The First Amendment is about constraining the government, not private entities. If you realized that, you wouldn’t sound so ignorant.

you want to tell people that the viewpoint-based censorship being carried out by the large platforms is a proper exercise of their 1st Amendment rights, and represents freedom of speech (for the platforms)

It does. Moderation isn’t censorship and it’s an act protected by the First Amendment. If you realized that, you wouldn’t sound so ignorant.

unsurprisingly, people who are being silenced don’t take that wonky position

You keep saying “silenced” as if someone booted off Twitter no longer has any platform to speak from. Every asshole booted from Twitter⁠—no matter their political affiliation⁠—can go to any other platform that will have them and be an asshole there. Losing a spot on Twitter is not the same as losing the right to speak freely; if you realized that, you wouldn’t sound so ignorant.

They feel, correctly, that their freedom to speak has been taken away

Facts don’t care about their feelings. If you realized that, you wouldn’t sound so ignorant.

such a legal right makes everything worse; it tells people that they have no recourse in the law or the Constitution to avoid being silenced

Except they do have recourse: They can make their own platform (spinning a Masto instance doesn’t sound terribly hard) or join another platform. They can’t use the law to regain the privilege of being on the platform from which they got booted, sure, but that’s how shit works in this country: You can’t make private entities host your speech. If you realized that, you wouldn’t sound so ignorant.

your explanations about why this censorship is OK but that one isn’t fall on deaf ears

And if moderation was censorship⁠—if “we don’t do that here” was “you can’t do that anywhere”⁠—you might have a point. But no one here with any goddamned sense will agree with your belief that being told to get off private property you don’t own is the same as having your right to speak freely revoked. If you realized that, you wouldn’t sound so ignorant.

if it’s OK for that speech to be censored, then I want this speech that I hate to be censored too

You should look at the people actually being censors. They’re the ones running book-banning efforts across the country, not the ones banning people from Twitter for violating Twitter’s rules. If you realized that, you wouldn’t sound so ignorant.

organizations like the ACLU understood that they should support the freedom of everyone to speak

The use of Twitter is not a civil right. Freedom from the consequences of your speech is not a civil right. Forcing people to host your speech/give you an audience is not a civil right. If you realized all of that⁠—and stopped acting like your morality, your beliefs, and your warped-ass definitions of words like “censorship” and “woke” aren’t objective fact and shouldn’t be treated as such⁠—you wouldn’t sound so motherfuckin’ ignorant.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

you hide behind the legalism of the 1st Amendment to pretend that people are not being deprived of the freedom to speak

They’re not. I’m going to bold this entire paragraph so maybe you’ll get the fucking point this time around:

Twitter and Facebook are private services, not public property. No one has a right⁠—ethical, moral, or legal⁠—to use either or both services. Being denied the privilege of using one or both of those services doesn’t deny anyone their right to speak freely. Nobody owes you a platform, a bullhorn, or an audience⁠—and that includes the people who run Twitter and Facebook.

And before you say “NoT bEiNg On TwItTeR iS a LoSs of ThAt RiGhT” or something close to it: I don’t use Twitter by choice, and I still have my right to speak freely, so find an argument that isn’t so easily disproven.

(Also, maybe quit with the recycled bullshit statements. Even I don’t use my copypastas with the same regularity as you trot out the exact same sentences over and over and over as if repetition alone makes your arguments better.)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

As long as you repeat the same false statements, I will correct them.

Twitter and Facebook and similar large platforms are the premier places where conversation among the public takes place. For those platforms to silence people based on their viewpoints is immoral censorship. You happen to dislike the speech that is being censored, so you are happy that they are censoring, and rather than address the fact that such censorship is an immoral abrogation of the principles of free speech, you hide behind the legalism that the 1st Amendment allows private companies to censor. But not everything legal is moral.

And again, it is not a matter of people having a right to speak on those platforms. It is that platforms that set themselves up as places of public speech ought not to be censoring speech based on viewpoint.

As I write this, NPR is reporting that UPS will now refuse to deliver gun kits (that people assemble themselves into so-called “ghost guns”). Needless to say, it is immoral and an abrogation of the freedom of their customers for a delivery company to refuse to deliver packages based on a political viewpoint of their contents, even if it is legal for them to do so.

Outsourcing denial of freedom to private companies that are not bound by the 1st Amendment is immoral. It will also be used against the liberals who now love it – the same company that refuses to deliver gun kits can also refuse to deliver mifepristone, for example.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Twitter and Facebook and similar large platforms are the premier places where conversation among the public takes place.

So what?

For those platforms to silence people based on their viewpoints is immoral censorship.

Twitter banning someone, for any reason, doesn’t silence that someone. Look at Donald Trump.

You happen to dislike the speech that is being censored

If the speech of queerphobes like you was actually being censored, I’d line up to defend the rights of those queerphobes to speak their mind. Even they deserve the right to express their views, odious as they may be.

But their speech isn’t being censored. You have yet to convince me that being banned from Twitter is the exact same thing as losing the right to speak freely. You will fail at further attempts unless you bring something stronger than your paper-thin opinion about what Twitter should be.

it is not a matter of people having a right to speak on those platforms

The logical endgame of your argument is that such a right exists and Twitter should honor that right even though the law says Twitter doesn’t have to do that. After all, if Twitter should host all legal speech, how could such an obligation be met without legal enforcement?

platforms that set themselves up as places of public speech ought not to be censoring speech based on viewpoint

Numerous Mastodon instances set themselves up as places of public speech. For what reason should a pro-queer instance host (or federate with an instance that hosts) speech that expresses anti-queer viewpoints?

Outsourcing denial of freedom to private companies that are not bound by the 1st Amendment is immoral.

You keep conflating “loss of a privilege” with “denial of freedom”. The only way anyone banned from Twitter could lose any kind of “freedom” or is denied their right to speak freely is if Twitter tried to keep that banned user from posting anywhere else on the Internet. That isn’t happening.

Using Twitter is a privilege. Losing that privilege sucks, but that doesn’t stop anyone from speaking their mind. Prove me wrong, fucker.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: whoda think a neo-nazi would be a coward

Wow bro you dropped the term woke like a stone once I threatened to donate to trans causes every time you said it. It’s not surprising you are a coward. It is however surprising you didn’t try to pull the “I’m cancelled due to the consequences of my actions card.”

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Masnick now censors my posts that he considers to be spreading hate, so I’m leaving out the “w-word” to give him less cover. It has nothing to do with you.

If you believe that trans causes are a worthwhile charity, it seems silly for you to deprive them of your money based on whether or not I use a word, but if you are actually holding back donations, that lessens the annoyance of not using it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

That’s not how it works. At all. It may be being caught in the spam filter, but that, a block on duplicate posts, and the manual removal of obvious commercial spam after the fact are the only ways things submitted to be posted do not get displayed, and things caught in the spam filter may show up later on manual review.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Actually, for once, Hyman is telling the truth: Mike told Hyman that all their posts would be held for moderation to prevent Hyman from posting any further anti-trans bullshit.

Of course, that isn’t censorship⁠—Hyman is free to take his bullshit anywhere else that will have them and post it there. But Mike is holding back their posts all the same.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Bilvin Spicklittle says:

I don’t see what the issue is. The Founders who authored the Constitution simply could not have conceived of how different speech would be in our time. High-speed communication, far more abusive, bullying, and damaging than anything they could have imagined. Misinformation, vaccine denialism, and foreign propaganda.

Everyone has free speech, sure, but no one said it couldn’t be regulated. We need to license this the same way we license cars. It’s absolutely imperative that we have some common sense speech control regulation. At the very least background checks and mandatory training.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
TaboToka (profile) says:

Re:

Everyone has free speech, sure, but no one said it couldn’t be regulated.

Regulated in what way? Be more specific.

We need to license this the same way we license cars.

Not everyone has the means to take time off to spend all day at the DMV to get a license. Not everyone has ready access to their birth certificate or ability to get one (could be the county courthouse burned down).

If one’s fundamental right to freedom of speech is dependent upon having money, reliable transportation and free time, then the poor and destitute are automatically excluded. Is that the kind of country you want?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I don’t think you noticed that this commenter is simply just taking the commentary of people criticizing 2nd amendment maximalism, and inserting 1st amendment talking points in it.

Not quite sure what point he’s trying to prove, but he’s not making a serious point about the 1st amenement, more about the 2nd.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
jojo_36 (profile) says:

Re: *Breathes Deeply* Boi…

Listen here, you daft ass.

The issue is that two ideological parties want the internet in two radical perceptions. One side wants the internet to be a Wild West for neo-nazis, scum and villainy, the other wants the internet to be a squeaky clean version of Minority Report. Both of these are extremely harmful to free speech and sites, and it makes moderation of content virtually impossible to be enforced. It’s like two toddlers arguing over a toy bear, not aware that it’s limbs are about to be ripped off. The internet functions best on a balance of content and moderation on a global level. When you have multiple states of a nation vying to putting those two extreme visions to practice, you don’t get common sense. You get a clusterfuck.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'Bridges are terrible!' screamed person standing upon one

Ah the strange bedfellows that can result from a hatred of the first amendment and free speech, wherein those that believe that free speech is and always has been shorthand for consequence-free speech(only for speech they agree with of course) are working hand in hand with those that believe that just because the first amendment says the government doesn’t get to dictate what somewhat can say that doesn’t mean the government can’t dictate whether someone can say or host something.

The kicker of course is that if either side ‘wins’ they both lose, such that the only thing keeping them from suffering the consequences of their own actions are the very people they are trying to dismiss and/or strip the rights from.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »