Like many attacks on free speech, the New York law came in response to a tragedy. On May 14, 2022, an avowed white supremacist killed ten people and wounded three others in Buffalo, New York. He used Twitch to livestream his attack on the Black shoppers.
Governor Kathy Hochul immediately used the massacre to renew attacks on social media companies and to demand new regulations of speech. She directed the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) to investigate “the specific online platforms that were used to broadcast and amplify the acts and intentions of the mass shooting” and to “investigate various online platforms for ‘civil or criminal liability for their role in promoting, facilitating, or providing a platform to plan or promote violence.”
She also went public with a declaration that “[o]nline platforms should be held accountable for allowing hateful and dangerous content to spread on their platforms” because the alleged “lack of oversight, transparency, and accountability of these platforms allows hateful and extremist views to proliferate online.”
The result of Hochul’s call was The Hateful Conduct Law, entitled “Social media networks; hateful conduct prohibited” that went into effect on December 3, 2022. The law defines “hateful conduct” as
“[T]he use of a social media network to vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.”
N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 394-ccc(1)(a). The underlying “conduct” of vilification, humiliation, or incitement is left undefined, but it falls within the scope of the law if it is directed toward an individual or group based on their “race”, “color”, “religion”, “ethnicity”, “national origin”, “disability”, “sex”, “sexual” orientation”, “gender identity” or “gender expression.”
Thus, the law requires all social media companies to have (1) a mechanism for social media users to file complaints about instances of “hateful conduct” and (2) to publish the social media network’s policy for how it will respond to any such complaints.
The court found that there is “clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits” given the abridgment of First Amendment rights. Notably, after passing this law to great fanfare and acclaim, the court noted that the state “concedes that the Hateful Conduct Law may not be able to withstand strict scrutiny.” Indeed, it cannot. Yet, that did not stop Hochul and the legislature from passing a blatantly unconstitutional law.
Judge Carter writes:
“Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.'” Matal v. Tam (2017).
…
The Hateful Conduct Law does not merely require that a social media network provide its users with a mechanism to complain about instances of “hateful conduct”. The law also requires that a social media network must make a “policy” available on its website which details how the network will respond to a complaint of hateful content. In other words, the law requires that social media networks devise and implement a written policy—i.e., speech.
…[T]he Hateful Conduct Law requires a social media network to endorse the state’s message about “hateful conduct”. To be in compliance with the law’s requirements, a social media network must make a “concise policy readily available and accessible on their website and application” detailing how the network will “respond and address the reports of incidents of hateful conduct on their platform.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 394-ccc(3). Implicit in this language is that each social media network’s definition of “hateful conduct” must be at least as inclusive as the definition set forth in the law itself. In other words, the social media network’s policy must define “hateful conduct” as conduct which tends to “vilify, humiliate, or incite violence” “on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 394-ccc(1)(a). A social media network that devises its own definition of “hateful conduct” would risk being in violation of the law and thus subject to its enforcement provision.
The Court does reject the claims of the plaintiffs that the law is preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. However, it is a moot point given the unconstitutionality of the law.
What is most troubling about this law is not that the state has again sought to violate the constitutional rights of citizens or companies. It is that it will not matter to voters. Hochul and state legislators knew that there will be no political costs for passing laws that violate the First Amendment. Today, free speech is often portrayed as harmful and even a threat to democracy.
Indeed, anti-free speech sites like Above the Law previously mocked the lawsuit and suggested that the plaintiffs were made to look like fools in court. Volokh and others were denounced as fighting for hate speech while others like “Trans folks . . . have been suffering the joys of ‘free speech.'” The site described arguments made before Carter as simply embarrassing and told readers that “[t]he best thing about this is that those in opposition of the law are clearly grabbing at straws.” It appears that, despite what Above the Law viewed as silly arguments in court, those plaintiffs and their lawyers just secured a sweeping First Amendment victory.
One would hope that citizens would be outraged when their leaders seek to limit their constitutional rights. The opposite will be true. This stinging loss will be met with the appreciation of many in the public for having tried to limit free speech in the name of fighting hate.
Congratulations to Professor Eugene Volokh, Rumble, and their counsel (including Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression attorney Daniel Ortner) for securing this important victory.
Here is the opinion: Volokh v. James
Is it too much to ask that legislators thoughtfully consider those bills might pass judicial scrutiny and those that won’t? In 2015 Pew reported lawyers make up about 55% of state assemblies and senates. In 2019 Bloomberg Law reported lawyers make up about 40% of Congress – 54% in the Senate, 37% in the House. It doesn’t seem too much to ask they apply those law school lessons to their current job.
It is a shame that many of us have to check out our online news of the day to see how our freedoms have been abridged. The Left celebrates this type of activity. Hochul feels super-virtuous in all things I’m sure. She also displays her “Vaccinated” necklace regularly. That’s actually nice because when she ‘dies suddenly’ we’ll all know why.
“Notably, after passing this law to great fanfare and acclaim, the court noted that the state “concedes that the Hateful Conduct Law may not be able to withstand strict scrutiny.” Indeed, it cannot. Yet, that did not stop Hochul and the legislature from passing a blatantly unconstitutional law.”
It didn’t stop Texas or Florida either when they passed laws forcing SM platforms to carry content that violates their policies. Where was Turley when republicans were blatantly attacking free speech? Both of those laws were no different than the one from NY.
All law is force – so lets get that out of the way to start.
If TX, FL, NY pass a law they are FORCING someone to do something or to NOT do something.
With respect to TX and FL those laws are obviously constutitonal.
First they are NOT Compelled Speech laws. SM is not compelled to speak.
They are compelled not to silence others.
Musk. Zuckerburg, others are perfectly free to speek as they please.
What the TX, AND FL laws require is that if they allow everybody to speak, they must allow everyone to say whatever they wish about politics.
If you want an actual example of Constitutional Compelled speech laws – that would be FDA labeling regulations.
Drug and Food manufacturers are COMPELLED to say specific things on the packages of their products as required by the FDA.
The courts have found that constitutional.
It is highly unlikely that SCOTUS will find the TX and FL laws unconstitutional.
Regardless they are not anywhere close to the same as the NY law.
As Brandeis noted the remedy for bad speech is more speech, not enforced silence.
The NY law seeks enforced silence, the TX and FL laws seek MORE SPEECH.
You are incapable of understanding that these things are not only not the same, they are light years apart.
As always you lack critical thinking skills.
I would bet the MAGA capped Iron worker in Michigan grasps the difference.
Why don’t you ?
“With respect to TX and FL those laws are obviously constutitonal.
First they are NOT Compelled Speech laws. SM is not compelled to speak.‘
They are compelled speech laws. The state is compelling them to carry someone else’s message that violates their policies. Forcing them to carry someone else’s speech against their policies is compelled speech by government. Even the judge in the Volokh case mentions case law pointing this out.
“It is well-established that a private entity has an ability to make “choices about whether, to what extent, and in what manner it will disseminate speech…” NetChoice, LLC v. Att’y Gen., Fla., ”
They area telling a private company to put content that violates their policy. That is compelling speech.
Compelled speech is when the State forces YOU to say something – such as Canada’s law that requires people to refere to others by their prefered pronouns.
Compelling SM to CARRY speech of all is no different from the requirement that Phone companies do not sensor the speech they carry.
You can beleive otherwise, but if you expect that SCOTUS is going to have a problem with this your smoking dope.
“Forcing them to carry someone else’s speech against their policies is compelled speech by government.”
Nope. This is an old and dead issue.
“Even the judge in the Volokh case mentions case law pointing this out.”
There is no “Volohk Case” Volohk is a libertarianish legal Blog hosted on Reason.
Like Turley they review innumerable cases.
Often including parts ot the bad opinions of other judges. And sometimes allowing those with contrary points of view to post.
I would note that if the FL law is not constitutional then the DMCA is not constitutional, nor are the laws that require Universities and others that accept funds from govenrment to conform to the same speech requirements as government.
There is no difference between Harvard and Twitter.
They are both private entitities.
“It is well-established that a private entity has an ability to make “choices about whether, to what extent, and in what manner it will disseminate speech…”
And yet it is not. This has already been addressed in the TX case. I would further note that at almost the opposite oextreme of the Same issue, Those of you on the left seem to think it is OK for individuals and States to REQUIRE private businesses to Actually Create expressive messages that they do not wish to – “Master Cake”
The distinction is pretty simple. You can not force others to speek as you wish.
I would note that if you were correct – the FCC would be unconstitutional.
I will be perfectly happy to follow the constitution EXACTLY as written – Government may not involve itself in Speech PERIOD.
No FL law, no TX law, no DMCA, no S302 Defamation protection. No public accomadations laws, No Govenrment requests to anyone to censor anyone else.
But that is NOT how SCOTUS currently reads the constitution.
“They area telling a private company to put content that violates their policy. That is compelling speech.”
Nope. Laws requiring product labeling are compelled speech, they and many other forms of compelled speech have been allowed by the courts.
Must Carry laws are NOT compelled speech.
As noted in a prior post – I do not care if the courts reject must carry laws – If and Only If they get rid of all other laws that offend the first amendment even more. But that is NOT where SCOTUS is.
This was a pre-enforcement challenge, and part of the Eleventh Circuit’s rationale was that the state imposed a fine for violations.
It was different regarding the Texas law, which only provided for injunctive relief. as such, a pre-efnrocvement facial challenge was rejected.
In addition, the Fifth Circuit relied on a case, PruneYard Shopping Cwenter v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), in which the Supreme Court affirmed a judgment that allowed states to require public accomodations to allow speech.
“The NY law seeks enforced silence, the TX and FL laws seek MORE SPEECH.
You are incapable of understanding that these things are not only not the same, they are light years apart.”
As usual john you don’t understand why you are reading.
The TX and FL laws seek to force SM companies to carry speech that violates their policies. That is compelling them to put speech that they disagree with or is in violation of their rules. The NY law requires SM to post policies that define hate speech. Both cases are about government telling a private entire what to post and what to define. Both are unconstitutional.
“As usual john you don’t understand why you are reading.”
Nope.
“The TX and FL laws seek to force SM companies to carry speech that violates their policies.”
Actually that would be incorrect – because the issue is that SM companies have censored speech that does NOT violate their policies.
But lets presume that what you say is correct – Must Carry is not compelled speech. This is a dead issue.
“That is compelling them to put speech that they disagree with or is in violation of their rules.”
That phrasing is correct. That also does not violate the first amendment as the courts have read it.
AGAIN I would be perfectly happy to have to courts read the First amendment int he way that YOU are – but that has consequences.
Most public accomodations laws would be unconstitutional. FDA Labeling laws would be unconstitutional.
” The NY law requires SM to post policies that define hate speech. Both cases are about government telling a private entire what to post and what to define. Both are unconstitutional.
The NY law requires much more than you describe. It requires censorship.
If All NY did was pass a law that said that SM must have policies and much post them publicly and follow them – that would be no different from the laws that require employment rights posters to be put up in the worlk place. Actually it would be narrower than those laws.
The NY law is govenrment forced censorship. Which is almost the greatest violation fo the 1st amendment.
Here the courts points out exactly why the TX and FL laws are indeed unconstitutional.
“These choices constitute “editorial judgments” which are protected by the First Amendment. Id. (collecting cases). In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California, the Supreme Court struck down a regulation that would have forced a utility company to include information about a third party in its billing envelopes because the regulation “require[d] appellant to use its property as a vehicle for spreading a message with which it disagrees.” 475 U.S. 1, 17 (1986).
This is where TX is forcing SM to spread messages that they don’t agree with as in violating their policies.
All yopu are doing is demonstrating that the Judge in the FL case – the same law has been found constitutional in TX, is unfamiliar with the law and case law and constitution.
Ther eis no property involved here.
The case you cite by your own cite is a Property case.
As I said, I would be perfectly happy with a near absolute first amendment.
No gfovernment censorship.
No Government compelled speach.
No Governmen requirement to carry.
No Government protection of private parties from Defamation laws.
Not directly, not indirectly.
But that is NOT how the courts have read the constitution.
And you and the judges you cite are on the wrong side of the actual case law.
And the cases you cite clearly do not say what you claim.
PruneYard
Rumsfeld
Again, holding social media platforms to account for violating their section 230 protections by acting as publishers is not at all the same thing as New York attempting to use them to do an end-run around the Constitution.
The most charitable interpretation that one could make of your repeated insistence that these two things are even remotely similar is that you’re not very bright.
Svelaz: you keep asking rhetorically why Turley only writes about Fox (fake) News culture wars topics–i.e.–those attacking Democrats, and measures passed by Democratic states, while simultaneously ignoring free speech violations like Florida’s “don’t say gay” law, states that are banning or controlling the content of teaching about the history of slavery in the US and elsewhere (multiple states–don’t teachers have First Amendment rights?), and the latest–dictating the practice of medicine by forcing doctors to stop prescribing hormones for transgender people. We all know why–Turley’s just a mouthpiece for Fox (fake) News. He writes about topics on his assignment list, obeying like a good little boy, instead of comprehensively covering the entire topic and discussing both sides in an unbiased manner like a real legal commentator would do. And, to prove that he’ nothing but a paid mouthpiece, when discussing court rulings–he praises them as some sort of “victory”. He’s become a joke. Oh, and in today’s little toilet piece, he got in a dig at “Above the Law”, falsely branding it “anti free speech” because Joe Patrice, Liz Dye and other highly talented writers at ATL routinely hand Turley his ass.
Please post the text from the FL law that reads “don’t say gay”.
Why do you want to talk about sex to children? You are very creepy and hopefully are not around kids often.
Teaching children to accept people who are different is not “talking about sex to children”. You are the one who is “creepy” because you are obviously obsessed with the sexual orientation of LGBTQ people.
Talking about sex to 6 year olds is creepy. They have no concept of sex. They still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Those who would talk about sex to 6 year olds are pedophiles and groomers.
Gays Against Groomers has the right mind set.
Anyone else outside of that is just plain sick.
But woke Leftists are known to be sick. They should seek professional help, and be heavily medicated, not allowed to operate heavy machinery, own real estate, reproduce, or vote as they are not of a sound mind.
Teaching children to accept people who are different is not “talking about sex to children”.
Explaining oral and anal sex to 3rd graders has nothing to do with acceptance of others.
I would suggest that there is an actual reason for Turley’s choice of topics that you find so annopying.
That the left IS constantly violating individual rights, and that the Right is NOT.
There is no RIGHT to force your views onto someone else’s child.
There is however a right to express your views in actual public forums – Kindergarten is not a public forum. Twitter is.
Turley is an actual liberal.
He is not a moron. He has not self lobotomoized.
He is capable of reason and logic.
He can see what is trivial – that the arguments of the left are self contradictory.
“That the left IS constantly violating individual rights, and that the Right is NOT.”
False.
The right is just as guilty and more often than not. Turley simply chooses to ignore it because it will alienate his cherished readership which is clearly the Fox News crowd.
“There is however a right to express your views in actual public forums – Kindergarten is not a public forum. Twitter is.”
Twitter is a private company that offers it’s platform to express your views provided you agree to their terms and conditions and they often include the right to remove and ban contend that violates those terms. Politicians are not exempt, BUT they have been given a lot of leeway until republicans kept going too far. Now they are subject to the same rules as everyone else and they are whining about losing that special treatment and crying foul.
“Turley is an actual liberal.
He is not a moron. He has not self lobotomoized.
He is capable of reason and logic.”
Turley is a libertarian. Or at minimum a classical liberal. He’s certainly disingenuous and dishonest with a lot of his columns. He’s also a massive hypocrite.
“The right is just as guilty and more often than not.”
If you beleive that is true you would have no trouble demonstrating it.
I have been here for Years – I have NEVER seen you make a clear case that the Right is treading on individual rights.
While there is little doubt that on occasion they do – YOU Are blind to actual infringements by the left all the time.
And see infringements by the right that do not exist.
“Turley simply chooses to ignore it because it will alienate his cherished readership which is clearly the Fox News crowd.”
Turley can defend himself. But your claim is nuts. Turley has attacked the right repeatedly and frequently wrongly.
Turley is a liberal not a conservative. Not a libertarian. But he is also not a nut job progressive.
“Twitter is a private company that offers it’s platform to express your views provided you agree to their terms and conditions and they often include the right to remove and ban contend that violates those terms. ”
Twitter has OFFERED itself as a public forum. That is a contract.
You constantly make this “violate TOS argument – that has long ago been falsified. We KNOW fromt he twitter files that Twitter was NOT following their own policies. That THEY were censoring far outsdie of their TOS.
That is breach of contract.
“Politicians are not exempt,”
The left constantly seems to think they are. You constantly tell all of us that as an example fake russian bots spreading an allegedly republican message is illegal campaign speech, and illegal campaign contributions. If it is improper For non existant russian bots to favor one candidate,
then it is illegal for Twitter to disfavor another, and WORSE still it is highly illegal for those in govenrment acting as government to disfavor or favor any candidate.
YOUR the one that seems to think that anything that benefits a republican is an illegal campaign contribution.
It is the LEft still trying to make a crime out of the Stormy Daniels NDA – thet you are OK with SM censoring vast amounts of political speech ?
“BUT they have been given a lot of leeway until republicans kept going too far.”
Nope – and you make the point perfectly – YOU think that Republicans went too far – By What ? Speaking the Truth ?
The normal argument is that you can not even censor falsehood – doing so is STILL immoral, and WORSE than allowing falsehoods to be spread.
But what YOU, the Left, SM, the media, democrats, … have done is CENSOR the Truth.
You are actually trying to argue that “telling the truth” is “going to far” ?
Even Fauxi is now admitting that Vaccines do not work.
So what do we have ?
The virus to a very high degree of probability came from China.
Masks do not work.
Lockdowns do not work.
The vaccine does not work.
Each of these and many other TRUE statements about what Should be a non-political issue – except that EVERYTHIGN those of you on the left beleive – even if false is “political”
.
Are you really saying that you are so much of a left wing nut that in Svelaz World censoring the TRUTH is OK ?
Where in any SM policy does it say that they can ban you for speeking the Truth ?
“Now they are subject to the same rules as everyone else and they are whining about losing that special treatment and crying foul.”
Again false. One of the other confirmations of the Twitter files.
The censorship was increadibly loppsided. Those few left wing sites that got censored were mostly engaged in satire – they were offering conservative viewpoints as satire – so near universally it was conservative (and libertarian) views that were censored.
Further – the people who were censored near universally DID NOT violate Twitters TOS.
This is not Republicans unhappy with having to conform to policies that others were happy with.
This weas near entirely Select groups -Mostly republicans, but on Covid it was anyone at odds with the status quo, being subject to standards that no one else was.
Alex Berenson was Censored for citing data From the CDC – because the DATA was at odds with the policies at that moment.
And of course we have the massive censorship of the Hunter Biden Laptop story – a TRUE story, that was MASSIVELY censored – as well as anyone who tried to link to it.
Less well featured by Taibbi and Co – anyone providing Factual information about Election fraud or misconduct in 2020 was censored.
Because god forbid fragile left wing nuts should be exposed to the FACT that there was lots of ACTUAL Fraud.
BTW Germany just “overturned” the 2021 election of the Berlin Mayor – because there were problems with voting machines at some precints in a close election. The scale of the problems in Berlin were small in comparison tot he problems in AZ in 2020 or 2022, or GA, or WI, or PA, or ….
It is amazing – the German courts grasp that people must be able to trust their elections – but americans do not.
“Turley is a libertarian. Or at minimum a classical liberal.”
He continues to self identify as a liberal and a civil libertarian – TGhat would be the typical ACLU member 20 years ago.
“He’s certainly disingenuous and dishonest with a lot of his columns. He’s also a massive hypocrite.”
I have problems with Turley – He has not yet fully grasped that The left LIES – always and constantly. He STILL trying to pretend their MIGHT be some parity between the evils of the left and the right.
I am not a republicans, I am not a conservative. I have real disagreements with both.
But the extent to whcih republicans and conservatives are dangerous is small and relatively well defined.
Conservatives AT WORST seek to return the country to less than perfect conditions a few years of a decades or so ago.
That would NEVER be the end of the world. Further it is not ALWAYS inherently wrong. As I have noted before MOST efforts to make the world better FAIL. We drop back, learn and try again.
The left – even past liberals is constantly seeking to impose by force. untied new ideas that are pretty much never very well thought out.
But the modern left is looking to impose more than new ideas, they are actively seeking to get ruid of hundreds often thousands of years worth of social structure that has WORKED quite well. And they seek to impose structures that we KNOW from past experience FAIL and fail badly.
Giselle, you are obviously lack – of brainwashed, ma amie!
Did they have to bake a gay cake, too?
Have you ever heard of the concept of common carriers?
Hullbobby has already posted 20 times. Why is this poster allowed to dominate the discussion? Everyday we hear this poster’s asinine comments and whining. This poster should let others speak for a change. 😉
Svelaz, I ent back to count the number of time Hullbobby posted on this thread: 3.
David, i guessed that I commented three times, but thanks for the fact-check. I guess now I am up to 5 whereas Svelaz is at about his usual 100. Thanks David!
Had the Hateful Conduct law stood, then just think of all the professors, activists (but I repeat myself), and Democrats in general who would be arrested for hate speech against men, white men, white people, white women, white cops, white children, Christians, Jewish Israelis, Jews who support Israel, cis-gendered people, heterosexual people, TERFs, and all the other people the Left hates.
Would that professor who said white people should die have been arrested?
The police would need to buy handcuffs in bulk to respond to BLM and Antifa protests and riots, with all their hateful rhetoric. “Cops are pigs, fry ‘‘em like bacon” sound like hate speech.
Be assured that those who seek to pass hate speech laws always wish to retain the right to voice hateful opinions themselves. They want the power to silence others. They never think these laws should apply to themselves. They’ll come up with excuses why it’s laudible to target the victims of their own hate speech. They’ll claim these laws only protect some races, genders, sexual orientations, and religion.
Don’t buy into this. Do not give the government the right to police your speech, and to determine what is good or bad. That definition tends to evolve into what is good or bad for the political party in power.
Karen S.
Well said.
Karen S–you again? You don’t know what “professors” teach because you never attended college. Yet, you believe that “professors” preach against white people, Christians, “Jewish Israelis”, Jews who support Isreal, cis-gendered people, heterosexual people,….etc.. Just more of your regurgitation of swill you heard on Fox (fake) News, which routinely preaches against educated people and educators. When you fall for this BS, it proves you aren’t college-educated. Part of alt-right indoctrination is to cause you to believe that you are equal to or superior to educated people because colleges teach only “bad” things, like accepting everyone regardless of their race, gender or sexual orientation. Where are all of the “BLM and Antifa protests and riots”? You say “do not give the government the right to police your speech and to determine what is good or bad”–does that mean you are opposed to DeSantis and Noem and their attacks on LGBTQ people?
Gigi: You must be a professor or some sort of educrat. We need to be schooled by those of your ilk to be smart, eh? You latch on to LGBTQ folks because you want everybody to know how victimized they are. Sorry, ain’t havin’ it.
Where are all of the “BLM and Antifa protests and riots”? You’re just kidding right? You should buy a TV I think.
“…routinely preaches against educated people and educators”
Glad you see the distinction.
Please show us the wounds from the attacks by the Govs. …muh fee-ees is hurt…. meanwhile the number 1 killer of lbg peopel is….that’s right, repulican governors….oops, I mean lgb people.
Anyone who reads the news knows what professors teach – they are constantly making the news. Either because they are teaching egregious nonsense, or because they are teaching wisely and their students want them silenced.
You are the single person on this blog most obviously unaquainted with the actual facts in the real world about almost any subject.
John Say,
They seem to be devoid of reality.
After all, they cannot define what a “woman” is.
And, there are 97 different sexes.
Then there is the fetus knows it is trans in the womb.
Yet, it is a small mass of white ooze, or something like that.
Seems to be a contradiction in logic.
I guess that a fetus has the right to cross dress, but not the right to life.
Professors teach wisely and then there are those who teach different points of view. Which is why many of us go to college to learn about different points of view. They may be controversial views and some just plain wacky but still interesting. That is why we have learned about CRT and other issues that wouldn’t have been on peoples radar.
Is that your reason for teaching anal intercourse to third graders? You are sick.
There is a distinction between College and public education.
While I am massively opposed to the unconstitutional subsidization fo College, otherwise, colleges are free to teach as they please.
As a parent I am free to refuse to pay to have my kids educated where I beleive they are teachining nonsense.
As a student I can chose to go wherever I please and study whatever I please.
College students are often stupid – but they are adults.
CRT is racist and should not be taught anywhere. And I will oppose it.
But I have no right beyond speaking out to thwart a college teaching CRT.
Public education is different. We are dealing with Children – often young children.
The best solution to public education is to eliminate it – mak it all private – K-Phd.
But that is not happening.
What you can not do is confiscate children from their parents. Forcibly indictrinate them with nonsense. And then force parents and others to pay for it.
The law merely requires these online publishers to take complaints, and have a civility policy.
It’s up to the company to define civility policy. If they are OK with posting mass-murder porn where
less than 20 are killed, but not if over 20, that’s their call.
JT’s expansive interpretation of the 1st Amendment strips away from communities and states their ability
to uphold norms of civility and decency, something that all societies need if they expect to endure.
JT is out of step with reality….most Americans think the legal system has gone way overboard in empowering individuals and disempowering the group / community.
Since when has the government been able to decide “Norms of civility and decency”? Honestly, I am shocked that an American would ever utter such a nonsensical statement. In your failure to even think for one second about what you are saying, you are saying that government can keep people from saying what they believe. We all know that government has turned hostile to the Christian religion at this point, whereas they worship the Muslim religion and some others. Therefore, by your reckoning, government can keep religions from saying what they have been saying for thousands of years about good and evil. Government very much favors homosexuals at this point, and it appears they want to keep anyone from ever saying anything negative about homosexuality, no matter how true it is.
And let’s imagine that Conservatives get elected in some states and decide that promiscuity is not in accord with standards of “decency and civility”? Or that homosexuality is a bad thing? Would you then desire strong sanctions against anyone who spoke in favor of homosexuality? Your position is remarkably simplistic and you did not think this through. Your desire to have government punish your political enemies has overpowered your reason.
All this law is saying is, “You digital publishing platforms need to hatch your own policy of acceptable content, publish it, and then take reports of its violation from your users”.
That’s a far cry from government forcing its idea of what these standards should be on everyone.
But, such distinctions about who has the power to decide elude many.
Which violates freedom fo speech.
It is none of the state’s business if platforms refuse to hatch such policies.
“. . . way overboard in empowering individuals and disempowering the group / community.”
Ever notice how power-lusters always usurp rights by rejecting individualism and embracing collectivism?
It’s a balancing act. Of course, we want strong individual rights, but they must be balanced with responsibilities. To shift too far toward community authority = fascist conformity. To shift too far toward the individual invites misanthropic anarchy. An innovative, orderly society requires just the right balance.
It’s natural to debate this balance point. But it’s illogical to pretend we don’t need one.
“It’s a balancing act.”
Really? What’s the right “balance” of poison and health? Ever seen what poison does to a body? Same thing collectivism does to a culture — it spreads and suffocates the individual (just as in the West). The end state is dictatorship.
Please define what responsibility is.
There’s a fair bit of irony in suggesting that John’s interpretation of the 1A is somehow out of the scope of its intention when you end your post by claiming that it should be beholden to the wholly subjective feelings of some nebulous group or community. For as much as you might think it sucks, the 1A makes no exception for so-called “hate speech”, due in no small part to the fact that it’s subjective and therefore impossible to define, and it certainly doesn’t make exceptions on the basis that speech may violate societal norms, something that is once again completely subjective. Who gets to define this stuff? You? No thanks.
As for your interpretation of the law in question, you should probably have read the article before chiming in, specifically the bit about how the law requires social media networks to endorse the state’s message about “hateful conduct”, and that in order to be in compliance with the law also requires them to adopt a definition that is at least as inclusive as the definition set forth in the law itself. That doesn’t leave social media sites with much wiggle-room when crafting their civility policies.
This law is yet another in a series of attacks on the Constitution by people with a vested interest in controlling speech, and if there’s any sanity left in America it’ll be shot down as such like every previous attempt has been to-date.
As an aside, for as much as it pains me to see someone actively arguing for the wholesale theft of his right to free speech, the irony is that you are welcome to do so due entirely to that right. I’m sure that irony is lost on you.
Which is compelled censorship as a civility policy requires the removal of posts, at a minimum, to be enforced.
A Holocaust education web site has an ethical duty to remove posts, comments, and replies denying the Holocaust or defaming the Judenvolk. The state has absolutely no business if the web site refuses to remove such posts, comments, and replies.
The legal genius at Above the Law, CHRIS WILLIAMS, better go back to law school for a refresher course on the First Amendment before penning another column.
hamocole: Did you notice, in Chris’ William’s Bio that appears below the article, that he is “a published author on critical race theory?” This is what selective-fact, selective information education produces!
I live in the northern part of NYS, a part of the majority, area wise, that is red; but that cannot override the NYC and other urban centers of my state that consistently vote as parasites on the taxpayers of the remainder of the state. The prog.left dems in control of Albany, the governing bodies of NYC plus the added weight of the likes of schumer and gillibrand make it impossible for any but the most radical left of concepts to survive here. I do hope federal judges keep a heavy watch on the craziness that comes from state level versions of schumer, nadler and aoc.
Alma Carman,
Yep.
Except for Governor’s day at the State Fair, they pretty much ignore the rest of us out side of Albany, and the 5 boroughs.
IIRC, Cuomo made a trip up to Adirondack Park to show his support of the “Upstate.” People lined up on the route with their backs turned, as his limo passed.
What I am noticing is that as smart businesses are leaving the state because of onerous taxes and regulations, even up north here we are getting more and more people without jobs who are getting used to being on the public dole and when they vote (as do the army of bureaucrats hired to process these losers through the government system) they vote to continue the steady flow of free government stuff and benefits without noticing that there is an ever-shrinking pool of workers paying into the system to support these parasites. We are on the same rocket sled to h*ll as california but the blithering idiots in the urban areas want to remain willfully ignorant and blissful.
Alma Carman,
I agree.
NY is going to be hollowed out, with nothing but the middle class who is left to pay for all those welfare programs.
They will lose more seats in Congress, and declare they are winning the woke war.
Gullible liberals have swallowed the Democrat propaganda that conservatives are evil, so whatever they say is harmful; that words are violence; and that certain chosen “identities” are victims who must be protected by the State, even if that protection is unconstitutional. Once a nation embeds these false claims into their ethos, it will take a century, and a courageous leader with vision and integrity, to overturn them. There is no one of that caliber around today — let’s hope we can produce one in the next hundred years.
Gates and crew truly believe they are morally superior and can simply “program” their AI software to keep the rest of us in check. Stopping censorship will be messy of course, but they must be resoundingly crushed. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
“…basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression…”
Yet Christians can be attacked, it is encouraged, check. RELIGION
White people may be attacked, also encouraged, check. RACE COLOR ETHNICITY NATIONAL ORIGIN
Males can be attacked, also encouraged, check. SEX, GENDER IDENTITY GENDER EXPRESSION
Heterosexuals can be attacked, also encouraged, check. SEXUAL ORIENTATION
The whole scheme is a hypocritical nightmare.
The Governor of New York and the State Legislature may feel there is no cost to them politically but maybe they should look out their windows at the long line of cars and u-haul trailers heading out of state to other destinations like free states. What was the count for the last year, about 300,000 people exiting New York. I suspect that there are going to be some tax consequences of all these people leaving. They apparently feel that New York is no longer worth fighting for.
Your stats are correct but they are not leaving because of free speech rights. They are leaving because of the onerous taxes and overall cost of living
The violations of free speech and other constitutional rights and the levying of high taxes to pay for Leftist Agenda Programs are being enacted by the same bunch of Thugs…..and that is why all those folks are voting with their feet….and Incomes.
The truth is New York State has the same problem so many other States do….Leftie populations in large urban areas outnumber Conservatives who live outside and away from those urban areas.
Face it….when your State is losing population to other States….that is telling both on your own failing State and the success of the gaining State.
When will states enact voting laws that give equal representation to all parts of the state? Votes per county based on population.
.Taxes are a big part, especially in NYC, where high-income people are hard hit. Therefore NYS is losing some of its highest taxed citizens in much greater proportion, while those that negatively impact NY’s budget remain. That is a recipe for disaster. But it is not just taxes. High-profile conservatives that pay high tax rates left the city also due to liberal hate speech where even their children are attacked verbally. Businesses, new and old, have to reconsider if NY will go after them should they use NY as their base, The same is true with 501(c)3 tax-free foundations. Will those rich conservative donors continue to provide large gifts to charitable city organizations like the Metropolitan Opera and the Metropolitan Museum of art when they live elsewhere? That remains to be seen, but my bet is a lot of their money will follow them out of he-l. I believe NYC’s saving grace will be foreign investment in the city
Outside of NYC, cost of living is not that bad.
Well, it was not that bad till Bidenflation hit us in the pocket book.
But that is happening across the nation, not just NY.
The election results definitely show that there was a red wave in New York. (This was why so many right, left, and center believed that there would be a nationwide red wave at around midnight eastern time)
Could these people who moved from New York cost the Democratas the House?
Once again the wisdom of the founders breaks through the fog of modern-day woksters and their liberal cohorts. The antidote to hate speech is more speech and if anyone is offended let he, she or it defend their position in the marketplace of ideas. If truly meritorious, others should agree and that is how disputes are resolved.
To my thinking, the biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is this: anti-free speech people who vote for Republicans are a tiny extreme fringe; anti free-speech people who vote for Democrats are a strong and growing part of the party. They control academia and communications. The mainstream Democratic party is run by people who have only a lukewarm affection for the 1st Amendment.
Don’t embrace the 2cnd, 5th, 10th and many others very warmly either.
The law also requires that a social media network must make a “policy”
I’ve seen an obscure term used on line that sounds like this. What was that term?
Oh yea, censorship by proxy.
The Court actually found 1A violations on two grounds:
1. The social media company was required to adopt a policy based on the definition of hate speech dictated by the state. This was impermissible compelled speech as applied to the social media company.
2. The broad terms of the definition were facially invalid because they could chill the speech of USERS of the platforms.
No doubt the state will appeal.
If Turley really was concerned about free speech being “attacked” by laws such as the one on his column he sure was dead silent on the one passed by Texas in 2021 doing the same thing. Texas house bill 20. The law would ban platforms with more than 50 million monthly users, such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, in the U.S. from removing a user over a “viewpoint” and require them to publicly report information about content removal and account suspensions.
According to Turley this was an attack on free speech by republicans and he never criticized it in any meaningful way. The law like the one from NY requires social media to post information about content removal and account suspensions and also forces them to carry messages they don’t agree with. It’s exactly what the NY case ruled on, the state compelling speech.
In fact the Supreme Court blocked the law from being enforced recently. We didn’t see Turley calling out republicans for attacking free speech.
Likely because Turley’s intelligent enough to recognize that that’s not a free speech issue. That’s politicians holding platforms responsible for violation the projections afforded to them by section 230 by acting as publishers. That you’d dare equate the two doesn’t speak well of either your intelligence or your sincerity, whichever it is that’s responsible for you having equated that with an attempt by New York to try to use social media platforms as a proxy through which to violate the First Amendment.
Turley actually posted about it.
Just wondering if MSNBC is headquartered in NY, if so they would not pass legal muster under this absurd law.
Oh never mind, it isn’t hate speech if it attacks the “right” people.
Once again the State of NY passes a foolish far left law that allows the courts to lay out the limits to their aggressive attempts to overthrow our Constitution. We saw it with the 2nd A and now the 1st.
The bad news is that Schumer and Biden have already had 100 new “diverse” judges nominated and appointed in Biden’s first two years, more than either Obama and Trump. These unqualified “jurists” will work their way up the ladder and ultimately be in higher and higher positions of power in the judiciary sector. I am all for diverse judges, people like Thomas and Barret, a black man and a female, as well as an RBG as a highly qualified Justice, but as we have seen from Biden, it is only the boxes checked and NOT the qualifications that matter. One recent nominee had no idea what Article V or Article II were and yet she will get 51 votes from the Democrats and probably enough from the Republicans.
Biden has given us the unqualified diversity of Kamala Harris, KJP and Pete Buttigieg, three prime examples of what happens when you go for the boxes and not the actual qualifications.
Hullbobby: Your last sentence is sooooo true,…”three prime examples of what happens when you go for the boxes and not the actual qualifications.” It reminds me of turning on the television and coming away with the conclusion that Blacks (13%), interracial couples, and gay couples represent the majority of America. (I have no problem with any members of these classes, -and have had friends in all three groups, but I have a MAJOR problem with media pushing, stoking, prodding, pricking us with “normalizing” propaganda.)
HullBobby,
Dont forget Biden’s senior Department of Energy (DOE) official who is to make an appear in court for baggage theft today.
Here is former Director of National Intelligence, and ambassador to Germany, Ric Grenell take on appointments based on boxes and not qualifications,
“It’s always about these irrelevant characteristics about subgroups. To me he creates division, because he keeps pretending like we’re all in different boxes.”
“”When you give someone a job because of their skin color or when you give someone a job because they’re gay or for any reason that is an irrelevant characteristic, you really create not only a problem for the country, but you’re also doing a disservice to the minority groups,” he explained. “I mean, who wants to be given a job simply because they’re gay? I can’t think of anything that’s more offensive.”
https://justthenews.com/government/tuesformer-ambassador-grenell-criticizes-pete-buttigieg-he-makes-gay-community-look-weak?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Above the Law sounds like they are Below Common Sense.
It must be written again that the state generally has no business on whether or not the owner of a web site refuses to remove content.
Content that “vilif[ies, humiliat[es], or incite[s] violence” are not exceptions (though of course if the incitement meets the Brandenburg standard, the author of the incitement is subject to lawsuit and prosecution)
As such, a web site refusing to remove “there is no God”, “the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church”, or “Sunni Islam is the real Islam” is not the state’s business, even if it violates the web site’s own Terms of Service.
The National Socialist Democrat WOKE Party aka NAZI can never tolerate free speech.