DOJ And State Attorneys General Threatening Social Media Companies Over Moderation Practices Is A First Amendment Issue

from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept

Earlier this month, President Trump made it explicitly clear that he expects the Jeff Sessions' DOJ to use its power for political purposes, protecting his friends and going after his enemies:

And, while the DOJ hasn't done that concerning indictments of Trump's friends and cronies, it appears that Sessions may be moving towards it with another "enemy" in the mind of Trump. Over the last few weeks Trump has also made it clear that he (incorrectly) believes that the big internet companies are deliberately targeting conservatives, and has threatened to do something about it.

On Wednesday, just after Twitter and Facebook appeared before Congress, the DOJ released a statement saying that it was investigating whether or not actions by the big internet companies was "intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas." The full statement was short and to the point:

We listened to today's Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on Foreign Influence Operations' Use of Social Media Platforms closely. The Attorney General has convened a meeting with a number of state attorneys general this month to discuss a growing concern that these companies may be hurting competition and intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms.

The competition question is one that the DOJ's antitrust division clearly has authority over, but alarms should be raised about the DOJ or state AGs arguing that these platforms are "stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms." Because while -- on its face -- that might sound like it's supporting free speech, it's actually an almost certain First Amendment violation by the DOJ and whatever state AGs are involved.

There are lots and lots of cases on the books about this, but government entities aren't supposed to be in the business of telling private businesses what content they can or cannot host. Cases such as Near v. Minnesota and Bantam Books v. Sullivan have long made it clear that governments can't be in the business of regulating the speech of private organizations -- though those are both about regulations to suppress speech.

But there are related cases on compelled speech. Most famously, perhaps, is West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette which said schools' can't make kids say the Pledge of Allegiance. In that case, the court ruled:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

Forcing platforms to carry speech would clearly go against that.

Miami Herald v. Tornillo actually seems even more directly on point. It was in response to a Florida state law demanding "equal space" for political candidates, but the court ruled, pretty definitively, that as private publications, the government could not compel them to host speech they did not want to host. The ruling even discussed the issue of a lack of competition -- which Sessions' statement alludes to -- and concludes that's not an excuse for compelling speech. In CBS v. the Democratic National Committee, the Supreme Court clearly noted:

The power of a privately owned newspaper to advance its own political, social, and economic views is bounded by only two factors: first, the acceptance of a sufficient number of readers -- and hence advertisers -- to assure financial success; and, second, the journalistic integrity of its editors and publishers.

In other words, if a private speech hosting platform is too one-sided, that is for the market to decide, not the government.

So, yeah, there are concerns raised here about freedom of expression... but it's by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and whichever State Attorneys General decide to participate in this clown show. Oh, and just to put a little more emphasis on why this is clearly a political move designed to suppress free speech rights? So far only Republican Attorneys General have been invited -- a point I'm sure any court would take note of.

Filed Under: compelled speech, content moderation, first amendment, free speech, jeff sessions, pressure, state attorneys general


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2018 @ 9:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The terms "racist" and "sexist" are subjective

    Actually no, they're really not. They are sometimes used subjectively but, by definition, they are not subjective. As soon as you advocate the superiority of one race/gender above another, or the inferiority of one race/gender to another, that's racist/sexist.

    the top levels of science, chess, and anything requiring objective intellect tends to be overwhelmingly male.

    No one is denying this. What people have a problem with is when someone (such as the author of the study you cited) try to say this is because of some inherent difference between men and women and everyone should just ignore it and move on. This is a load of crap.

    #metoo has women admitting to abuse, but in the course of that they are also admitting to covering up the abuse for decades and enabling further abluse.

    Congratulations, you just blamed the victims, who perhaps don't really want to talk about it because, you know, IT'S A FREAKING HORRIBLE EVENT AND NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO HAVE THAT DRAGGED OUT IN THE PUBLIC FOR ALL TO SEE. Ugh.

    A smart man isn't going to throw his life away on marriage just because some feminist tells him divorce courts aren't biased.

    Then maybe he has the wrong idea about marriage to begin with and it's a good thing he isn't getting married.

    In the late 1970s, men were toldthat "nice guys" like Phil Donahue were the near "alpha males." Dumb men listened, while smart men saw Reagan, Arnold, and Stallone becoming the type of men that women reallyw anted. those who ecame "simps" wound up in the friendzone, while the men who were put down for being "sexist" got laid.

    And there you go being sexist again. It should never be about getting laid. You want that kind of release? You've got a hand, use it.

    Picking up women just to get laid is not something to be proud of, nor should it ever be a goal. That is the definition of sexism. Yeah, those "smart men", are the reason why #metoo exists in the first place.

    If oen side needs to censor the other based on ad hominem insults, it would appear that the side that supposedly needs to be silenced is correct. Historical precedent suggests this very strongly.

    Historical precedent suggests you are a racist, sexist, bigoted moron. No seriously. In this post you have managed to be racist, sexist (many times over), have concluded that your opinion is the ONLY correct one, and have shown a complete lack of knowledge of history, facts, and the human race. To whit, I can ad hom insult flat earthers until the cows come home (and many people do), they will never, ever, be correct. Your logic is invalid.


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.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

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

Close

Email This

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