"This is a stupid and ridiculous hearing," he said, because "The First Amendment applies to the government, not private companies." He added that just as the government cannot tell Fox News what content to air, "We can't tell Facebook what content to filter," because that would be unconstitutional.
While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it "Does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict ... the free flow of information and ideas." But as Senator Ted Cruz points out, Congress actually has the power to deter political censorship by social media companies without using government coercion or taking action that would violate the First Amendment, in letter or spirit.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users' defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content.
As Cruz properly understands, Section 230 encourages Internet platforms to moderate "Offensive" speech, but the law was not intended to facilitate political censorship.
The court reasoned that "Utilizing technology and the manpower to delete" objectionable content made Prodigy more like a publisher than a library.
The Internet Association, which represents Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other major platforms, claims that Section 230 is necessary for these firms to "Provide forums and tools for the public to engage in a wide variety of activities that the First Amendment protects." But rather than facilitate free speech, Silicon Valley now uses Section 230 to justify censorship, leading to a legal and policy muddle.
In response to a lawsuit challenging its speech policies, Google claimed that restricting its right to censor would "Impose liability on YouTube as a publisher." In the same motion, Google argues that its right to restrict political content also derives from its "First Amendment protection for a publisher's editorial judgments," which "Encompasses the choice of how to present, or even whether to present, particular content."
While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it "Does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict ... the free flow of information and ideas." But as Senator Ted Cruz points out, Congress actually has the power to deter political censorship by social media companies without using government coercion or taking action that would violate the First Amendment, in letter or spirit.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users' defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content.
As Cruz properly understands, Section 230 encourages Internet platforms to moderate "Offensive" speech, but the law was not intended to facilitate political censorship.
The court reasoned that "Utilizing technology and the manpower to delete" objectionable content made Prodigy more like a publisher than a library.
The Internet Association, which represents Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other major platforms, claims that Section 230 is necessary for these firms to "Provide forums and tools for the public to engage in a wide variety of activities that the First Amendment protects." But rather than facilitate free speech, Silicon Valley now uses Section 230 to justify censorship, leading to a legal and policy muddle.
In response to a lawsuit challenging its speech policies, Google claimed that restricting its right to censor would "Impose liability on YouTube as a publisher." In the same motion, Google argues that its right to restrict political content also derives from its "First Amendment protection for a publisher's editorial judgments," which "Encompasses the choice of how to present, or even whether to present, particular content."
No comments:
Post a Comment