Pam Geller Sues The US Gov't Because Facebook Blocked Her Page; Says CDA 230 Violates First Amendment

from the a-real-lawyer-filed-this? dept

Well known anti-Muslim troll Pamela Geller has teamed up with a group called the American Freedom Law Center to file one of the dumbest lawsuits we've ever seen. There's so much wrong here it's difficult to know where to start. Here's the lawsuit itself, which is filed against US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, even though Geller's own story about the lawsuit falsely claims she's suing Facebook. She's not. She's suing the US government because Facebook relies on Section 230 of the CDA in taking down some of her pages, and she claims, ridiculously, that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act violates the First Amendment. The lawsuit is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. Let's start with this, though -- Geller has long positioned herself as an extreme supporter of the First Amendment. And yet, she's now suing the government over CDA 230, a law which has probably done more than any other to guarantee that the First Amendment works on the internet.

The lawsuit talks up the vast open and public forums of the internet, which is accurate, but then argues that because there's so much content online, Section 230 no longer applies.
Unlike the conditions that prevailed when Congress first authorized regulation of the broadcast spectrum, the Internet can hardly be considered a “scarce” expressive commodity. It provides relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communication of all kinds.
And then it gets to the crux of her argument: that popular internet forums are so important, no one should ever be barred from using them:
Denying a person or organization access to these important social media forums based on the content and viewpoint of the person’s or organization’s speech on matters of public concern is an effective way of silencing or censoring speech and depriving the person or organization of political influence and business opportunities.

Due to the importance of social media to political, social, and commercial exchanges, the censorship at issue in this Complaint is an unmatched form of censorship.

Consequently, there is no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied in this case.
Except, this is really, really confused. Section 230 does not enable censorship. A private company is free to deny service or moderate its own services as much as it wants. That's their right as a private company. This is not a Section 230 issue at all. Geller and her lawyers are hellishly confused. Yes, Section 230's (c)(2) includes a so-called good-samaritan clause that basically says that a site does not take on new liability for taking down content, but that's separate from the issue of deciding to moderate content at all. Facebook can take down your page whenever it wants and it's not a First Amendment issue because Facebook isn't the government. And Section 230 has nothing to do with this at all, other than actually encouraging Facebook to leave up more speech since it's not considered liable for its users' speech.

But Geller's lawyers don't seem to understand the law they're whining about.
Section 230 permits content- and viewpoint-based censorship of speech. By its own terms, § 230 permits Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube “to restrict access to or availability of material that [they] consider[] to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”
Except that's not what Section 230 does at all. Companies are already permitted to do that because they're private companies. All Section 230 says is that in removing content, that doesn't mean those companies suddenly have liability for other content that they left up. Geller and her lawyers simply don't understand what Section 230 does and says. And yet they're suing over it.
Section 230 confers broad powers of censorship, in the form of a “heckler’s veto,” upon Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube censors, who can censor constitutionally protected speech and engage in discriminatory business practices with impunity by virtue of this power conferred by the federal government.
Except it does no such thing. Actually, Section 230 frequently protects against the heckler's veto because it makes it clear that platforms don't have to do anything and they're still protected from liability. This is actually a stronger protection against a heckler's veto than basically every other country in the world, most of which have a DMCA-like "notice and takedown" system, which does lead to protected speech being deleted. Section 230 protects against that, and a very confused Geller and her lawyers get this backwards.
Section 230 is not tied to a specific category of speech that is generally proscribable (i.e., obscenity), nor does it provide any type of objective standard whatsoever. The statute does permit the restriction of obscenity, but it also permits censorship of speech that is “otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)(A). Further, the subjective “good faith” of the censor does not remedy the vagueness issue, it worsens it.
This is just further confusion. The lawsuit is arguing over an issue as if this is about the government censoring speech, rather than private companies moderating speech -- something they've always been able to do, and which itself is protected by the First Amendment.

This lawsuit is the legal equivalent of that idiot who claims that any company moderating content is violating the First Amendment. And to that, I've got an obligatory xkcd for you: From there, she goes on to complain about Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all taking down some of her content for terms of service violations, and insisting that Section 230 is to blame (it's not) and that her free speech rights have been denied (they have not).
Section 230 of the CDA, facially and as applied, is a content- and viewpoint based restriction on speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Section 230 of the CDA, facially and as applied, is vague and overbroad and lacks any objective criteria for suppressing speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Section 230 of the CDA, facially and as applied, permits Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to engage in government-sanctioned discrimination and censorship of free speech in violation of the First Amendment.
None of that is a remotely accurate description of Section 230. Not even close. Geller's blog post, which falsely claims she's suing Facebook, rather than the US government, then just is a long extended whine about the fact that Facebook takes down her content when she violates its terms. Now, we've been vocal critics of Facebook's willingness to silence content and it's almost arbitrary decision-making in determining what content is appropriate for Facebook and what is not, but we'd never suggest that Facebook doesn't have a legal right to make those decisions. To make a bizarre First Amendment argument here, trying to link Facebook to the government via the free speech protections of Section 230, is nonsensical. It's almost as if her lawyers didn't even realize the argument they're really trying to make (which would also be a non-starter), that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are de facto public spaces, and thus went with the even more bat-shit crazy misinterpretation of Section 230.

As for her lawyers at the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) they're just as confused in a blog post about the lawsuit:
Section 230 provides immunity from lawsuits to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, thereby permitting these social media giants to engage in government-sanctioned censorship and discriminatory business practices free from legal challenge.
It's not government sanctioned censorship. And the immunity it provides is just that these platforms don't lose their own protections against liability on the content they leave up just because they choose to take down some other content. Section 230 infers no special benefits to platforms to take down content. It just says that taking down content won't lose them other protections -- protections, I should remind you -- that help promote and protect free expression online.

While there have been some questionable CDA 230 rulings lately, this one is an easy one. It should be laughed out of court pretty quickly on the basis of "did you even read the law you're suing over?"
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, intermediary liability protections, loretta lynch, pam geller, section 230
Companies: facebook, google, twitter, youtube

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2016 @ 9:43am


    Playing Devil's advocate, what they are trying to say is that these services have become a social necessity and first amendment protections should apply. I kind of agree.

    Why? All the first ammendment really says is the government will not stop somebody trying to spend their own money to get the message across. It does not offer any guarantee or requirement that anybody else will help them to get their message across, so if they have to buy their own printing press, or these days server, to publish their message, their first ammendment rights are still intact.
    She, like so many other people with extremist views, wants the first ammendment to guarantee her an audence, and it does not do that.

Add Your Comment

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

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.