The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Ash Bhagwat, "Do Platforms Have Editorial Rights?"
More from the free speech and social media platforms symposium in the first issue of our Journal of Free Speech Law; you can read the whole article (by UC Davis law professor Ashutosh Bhagwat) here, but here's the abstract:
Many regulatory proposals have been advanced, and in some cases legislatively enacted, to restrict how social media platform owners control what content they host, refuse to host, display, and prioritize. These proposals include, among other things, imposing common carrier status on platforms (an approach endorsed by Justice Thomas in a recent separate opinion), requiring viewpoint-neutral content moderation policies, and restricting or conditioning platforms' Section 230 immunities. These proposals seek to restrict how social media platforms control the content that they host, refuse to host, display, and prioritize.
These proposals are in deep tension with the idea that platforms themselves have First Amendment rights to control what content is available or visible on their platforms—what I call editorial rights. In this article, I define and distinguish various kinds of First Amendment editorial rights. I then examine how, and to what extent, the courts have extended editorial rights to new communications technologies. I next turn to the specific question of internet platform editorial rights, concluding that social media platforms should indeed enjoy substantial editorial rights, though probably fewer than prototypical holders of editorial rights such as print newspapers. I conclude by considering whether current regulatory proposals are consistent with these editorial rights.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
To the extent that they have editorial rights as a publisher, those rights are delimited and carry with them certain obligations.
Which means section 230 should not protect them - any more than it protects the NYT or Penguin books
You got what I meant
Section 230 protects the NYT.
It doesn't protect their editorials
It doesn't protect any thing they chose to publish, which is to say, it does not protect anything that falls under their "editorial rights."
including published letters to the editor.
https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2015/08/aa-can-a-newspaper-be-sued-for-the-content-of-a-letter-to-the-editor/
https://www.rcfp.org/supreme-court-will-not-hear-letter-editor-libel-case/
"The nation’s highest court declines to review a libel suit in which a prosecutor won damages from a Virginia newspaper."
That's right; it doesn't protect the editorials of any company, social media or otherwise. 230 protects companies from liability for user-generated content online. All companies (and, for that matter, individuals) that provide interactive computer service. The NYT, Facebook, Twitter, Reason, etc. Yes, including published letters to the editor — online.
It protects based on the medium, not based on the identity of the defendant.
No, because if the NYT publishes a "letter to the editor" online, it's still subject to libel
Do the electric, phone or water companies have editorial rights?
Yes. See Pacific Gas & Electric v. Public Utilities Commission.
Corporations have free speech rights. Their money is even a form of speech. These utilities may not shut off service to political opponents. The service of a social medium is to deliver posts. Facebook may endorse a Democrat candidate, and tell its members why, like a political message with the utility bill. It may not block the posts of his opponent. Delivering posts is its utility function, and the reason for its governmental privileges.
Nope.
I think a key point to remember is that Section 230's protections are privileges the government is extending, they are not 1st amendment rights.
The platforms have editorial rights, obviously so. They could be required to forego such privileges if they want to exercise them.
Threatening to change or remove section 230, costing billions in stock valuations, unless they play ball censoring harrassment, ohh look our political opponents are harrassing, don't forget them! is a First Amendment violation because the one has nothing to do with the other.
That two political factions are fighting, one to delete it unless they play ball censoring their opponents, the other threatening 230 if they do what the other party wants demonstrates, whatever 230 was about in the beginning, it is not anymore.
It is a club to coerce censorship. You know, as in nominal private ownership of corporations, but with heavy government "partnership" for control?
Wait, isn't that a central tenet of a political philosophy popular in the 1930s?
You're forgetting a key issue.
If you rearrange the letters in "Ashutosh Bhagwat," you get "Aha, Hogwash Butts."
Or, more pertinent to the issue of social media platforms, "Gabs Hath Washout."
I get Ivy Indoctrinated, Rent Seeking Lawyer Dipshit.
You also get "Aha! Hog's butt wash"!
Which might be a profitable occupation in farmland.
Sadly, no way to fit in a Devin Nunes joke here.
There is always a spot for a Devin Nunes joke.
A degree in cow-milking. A record of clinger-lathering. The embodiment of today's Republican Party.
"Do Platforms Have Editorial Rights?"
Are they publishers? If so, 1A press freedom protects them. If they are not publishers, what are they?
If you extend editorial rights to non-publishers, what does that mean? Can it mean anything? What do editorial rights protect, except activities pertaining to publishing?
If they are publishers, but are denied editorial rights, what prevents that from putting the editorial rights of all other publishers in jeopardy?
No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.
David,
That's a bit harsh, isn't it. The VC used to be populated mostly by lawyers and law students. But it hasn't been that way for literally years and years. While a question might be dumb (or, at least, uneducated) for a lawyer or professor or student; it might be perfectly legitimate for someone entirely outside the legal profession to ask.
I'd rather see people here feel free to ask all their laypeople-questions without worrying about, "If I ask this question, will lawyers make fun of me?" I'm not a medical doctor, and I know I ask tons of "stupid" questions when I'm seeing one of them for an office visit. (Or even if I bump into one at a cocktail party.) 🙂
"(Or even if I bump into one at a cocktail party.)"
I remember a letter in the paper (to Ann Landers) by a woman who was "complaining" that people at parties were always asking HER HUSBAND THE DOCTOR all these medical questions.
Or maybe it was Dear Abby, but it was definitely published in the paper, so that makes it really old.
I remember it as well. One aspect of being a medical doctor is that you will *always* be asked, "Doc, mind taking a look at this?"...even at non-medical social gatherings.
As a lawyer, I get this also all the time. "Hey, this happened to me/to my friend/to my ____. What's the law on this?" Each person figures out how to handle these situations. You can say, "My rate for answering questions is $___/hour." Or, you can say, "What the problem? I probably don't know that area of law, but I'm happy to listen."
I don't think there is one "right" way to handle these. But it's definitely a phenomenon. 🙂
You're right, except that I was responding to Lathrop. It wasn't a sincere request for information; it was a rhetorical question because he has already decided that platforms actually are publishers based on a ridiculous, idiosyncratic definition of "publisher," and has also already decided that he knows what this means factually and legally.