Posts
The GOP has introduced bills that would allow for civil lawsuits against platforms engaging in what they term "censorship" of posts, which it most certainly is. Many of the lawmakers are against the deletion of political and religious statements, says the National Conference of State Legislatures. And in roughly two states, Democrats are calling for greater scrutiny of big tech and are sponsoring the same measures.
The phone company is a platform and cannot be held responsible for what is said over their lines, and thus, cannot be sued. These social media giants are making the same claim that they are merely a platform, but if they are censoring content how are they the same as the phone company?
Former President Trump and the GOP in general, have gone after the federal liability shield that protects platforms like the phone company, or the comment section of a website, for two examples. There is no doubt that Silicon Valley is doing all the can to shut up conservative viewpoints and we are seeing this in other aspects of national commerce like the banning of certain books on Amazon and other sites.
And let's not forget that Twitter banned Trump on their platform and used the January 6th protests and riots at the Capitol as an excuse to do that. while Facebook gave him an indefinite suspension which is currently being reviewed by a semi-independent panel at this time.
Some people argue the legislative proposals are doomed to fail while the federal law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, is in place. They said state lawmakers are wading into unconstitutional territory by trying to interfere with the editorial policies of private companies.
Perhaps these companies should not be private, based on their incredible influence on public opinion, to the point that they likely swayed the 2020 presidential election in Joe Biden's favor.
Len Niehoff, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, described the idea as a “constitutional non-starter.”
“If an online platform wants to have a policy that it will delete certain kinds of tweets, delete certain kinds of users, forbid certain kinds of content, that is in the exercise of their right as an information distributer,” he said. “And the idea that you would create a cause of action that would allow people to sue when that happens is deeply problematic under the First Amendment.”
Len Niehoff, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, described the idea as a “constitutional non-starter.”
“If an online platform wants to have a policy that it will delete certain kinds of tweets, delete certain kinds of users, forbid certain kinds of content, that is in the exercise of their right as an information distributer,” he said. “And the idea that you would create a cause of action that would allow people to sue when that happens is deeply problematic under the First Amendment.”
Niehoff makes a good point, but that supports the argument of breaking these tech monopolies up. Okay, we know it's complicated.
The bills by the GOP vary slightly but many allow for civil lawsuits if a social media user is censored over posts having to do with politics or religion, with some proposals allowing for damages of $75,000 for each blocked post. They would apply to companies with millions of users and carve out exemptions for posts that call for violence, entice criminal acts or other similar conduct, which of course, is unconstitutional.
The sponsor of Oklahoma’s version, Republican state Sen. Rob Standridge, said social media posts are being unjustly censored and that people should have a way to challenge the platforms’ actions given their powerful place in American discourse. His bill passed committee in late February on a 5-3 vote, with Democrats opposed.
“This just gives citizens recourse,” he said, adding that the companies “can’t abuse that immunity” given to them through federal law.
The bills by the GOP vary slightly but many allow for civil lawsuits if a social media user is censored over posts having to do with politics or religion, with some proposals allowing for damages of $75,000 for each blocked post. They would apply to companies with millions of users and carve out exemptions for posts that call for violence, entice criminal acts or other similar conduct, which of course, is unconstitutional.
The sponsor of Oklahoma’s version, Republican state Sen. Rob Standridge, said social media posts are being unjustly censored and that people should have a way to challenge the platforms’ actions given their powerful place in American discourse. His bill passed committee in late February on a 5-3 vote, with Democrats opposed.
“This just gives citizens recourse,” he said, adding that the companies “can’t abuse that immunity” given to them through federal law.
Part of a broad, 1996 federal law on telecoms, Section 230 generally exempts internet companies from being sued over content that users post on their sites.
The statute, which was meant to promote growth of the internet, exempts websites from being sued for removing content deemed to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable” as long as the companies are acting in “good faith.”
And that, my friends, is the problem. Who decides what is "good faith?"
At the very least, Section 230 should be updated to ensure these powerful companies meet certain criteria before they receive legal protection. And they should NEVER be permitted to ban a sitting president elected by the people.
Please consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every ad you click on, you help in the fight against the China virus.
No comments:
Post a Comment