Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

New York’s Hate Speech Law Violates the First Amendment

by September 29, 2023
September 29, 2023
New York’s Hate Speech Law Violates the First Amendment

Thomas A. Berry

Social media sites face many choices when they set rules for users. How much speech is permissible? Will conversations be “anything goes” or strictly moderated for relevance and decorum? Will moderation decisions be automated, human, or a mix? Different sites have made different choices, and that’s as it should be. Indeed, the First Amendment requires that sites have the freedom to make these decisions for themselves.

Although social media may be a relatively new medium, long‐​established First Amendment principles give sites the right to control what content they host, just as newspapers and book publishers have a right to select the editorials and manuscripts they print.

(Getty Images)

Some states, including Texas and Florida, have attempted to infringe the First Amendment rights of social media companies in blatant ways, such as by forcing sites to host user content they do not wish to. And now New York State has joined the fray with its own unconstitutional intrusion into the editorial freedom of social media sites.

New York recently enacted an “Online Hate Speech Law” that requires social media sites to promulgate policies governing so‐​called “hateful conduct” and create “mechanisms” by which users can report such conduct. “Hateful conduct” is defined by the statute to include online speech that can “vilify” or “humiliate” a group or a class on the basis of race, sex, and other traits.

New York’s law was soon challenged in a lawsuit brought by several operators of online platforms, including law professor and First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh. As the operator of the “Volokh Conspiracy” blog, which allows user comments, Volokh himself would be forced to comply with the law’s requirements.

A district court ruled in favor of Volokh and blocked the law from going into effect, holding that it likely compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. The court found that the law impermissibly required sites to publish a “hateful conduct” policy even if they would prefer not to publish any such policy, forcing them to speak when they would prefer to remain silent.

The Volokh Conspiracy website. (Screenshot.)

New York appealed that decision to the Second Circuit, and Cato has filed an amicus brief urging the Second Circuit to affirm the lower court and hold the law unconstitutional (with thanks to attorneys Joshua Zuckerman and Brian McCarty of Gibson Dunn, who drafted the brief on behalf of Cato).

In our brief, we explain why the law’s “reporting mechanism” requirement violates the First Amendment rights of both social media sites and their users by chilling free expression. Some sites may prefer not to have a reporting mechanism for so‐​called “hateful conduct,” given that most of the speech falling under New York’s mandated definition of that term is itself lawful speech protected by the First Amendment.

These sites may reasonably expect that if they did have such a reporting requirement, users would naturally self‐​censor for fear of being reported. By compelling unwilling sites to create a mechanism for users to report on each other, the law is likely to stifle the uninhibited flow of speech that these sites would prefer to allow.

Of course, social media sites are free to voluntarily create reporting procedures, and many had already done so prior to New York enacting its law. But the choice of whether to create such a mechanism, how it operates, and what speech to make reportable must be up to each individual site.

New York’s one‐​size‐​fits‐​all definition of “hateful conduct” puts a thumb on the scale, with the clear aim of inducing self‐​censorship of some lawful speech that New York would prefer to suppress. The Second Circuit should make clear that states can’t use mandates like “reporting requirements” to indirectly achieve online censorship that states couldn’t impose directly.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Reinstating ‘Net Neutrality’ Is to Ignore Reality
next post
Arizona Wants to Take Condo Owners’ Property and Sell it to Somebody Else

You may also like

New Research Highlights How Chinese SOE Reform Helped...

September 22, 2023

Former Presidents Can’t Appoint Officers

September 26, 2023

How DOJ Helps Federal Prosecutors Escape Accountability &...

January 29, 2025

Shots to the Dome—Why We Can’t Model US...

May 28, 2025

On the Nippon Steel-US Steel Deal, Politics (Again)...

March 15, 2024

A New Podcast with Peter Van Doren

May 3, 2023

Who Stopped the Rescue of Silicon Valley Bank?

April 20, 2023

Milei Has Deregulated Something Every Day

December 9, 2024

Demystifying AI Experimentation and the Startup Ecosystem

May 1, 2024

College Cost Reduction Act: More Downsizing Needed

February 5, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Blue state Republicans threaten rebellion if Senate changes key provision in Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’

      June 5, 2025
    • Ricketts, Fetterman team up for crackdown on China’s attempts to purchase US farmland

      June 5, 2025
    • Hamas working to ‘sabotage’ Trump-backed aid group with ‘fake news’: Israeli official

      June 5, 2025
    • Longtime Trump loyalist flips on GOP’s ‘big, beautiful bill’

      June 5, 2025
    • Supreme Court rules Wisconsin unconstitutionally discriminated against Christian charity

      June 5, 2025
    • Trump touts ‘very positive’ breakthrough with Xi after slamming China for trade violation

      June 5, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,147)
    • Investing (2,008)
    • Politics (15,529)
    • Stocks (3,128)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved