The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Christopher Yoo, "The First Amendment, Common Carriers, and Public Accommodations: Net Neutrality, Digital Platforms, and Privacy"
The last article 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 Christopher Yoo, Penn) here, but here's the abstract:
Recent prominent judicial opinions have assumed that common carriers have few to no First Amendment rights and that calling an actor a common carrier or public accommodation could justify limiting its right to exclude and mandating that it provide nondiscriminatory access. A review of the history reveals that the underlying law is richer than these simple statements would suggest. The principles for determining what constitutes a common carrier or a public accommodation and the level of First Amendment protection both turn on whether the actor holds itself out as serving all members of the public or whether it asserts editorial discretion over whom to carry or host. This gives putative common carriers and public accommodations substantial control over their First Amendment status. The jurisprudence on privacy regulation, quasi-common carriers, non-common carriage services, and public accommodations confirms that the First Amendment protections they enjoy are substantial.
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
I haven't technically read the article, but for some reason it reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igj4GnkXjiA
The defining characteristic of the phone company as a common carrier is that the company didn't know what people were saying. They couldn't possible exercise editorial powers without first wiretapping.
On the Internet, everyone knows what's being said. Content can be discovered by search. That's a very different situation.
Nevertheless, I think the country and the world needs Internet platforms where absolutely anything can be said. No edits, no prior restraints, no forbidden topics, no forbidden opinions, not even insurrection is forbidden. But to allow libel and defamation and law enforcement cases to go forward, there must not be anonymity in this wide open Internet.
Freedom to speak and the responsibility to identify the speaker need to go hand-in-hand.
The problem is that we're facing an increasing tendency towards private retaliation against speech somebody is offended by. I've already had somebody try to get me fired over a blog comment they didn't like. (Using a burner account to make the attempt. Of course!)
The lack of anonymity would be an incredible gift to people into that despicable activity. Don't think "transparency", think "retaliation list".
Today the Bolsheviks who run FB/Instagram decided a mother whose son killed at the Kabul airport said Biden had blood on his hands in her Instagram account had her account closed. It really is about time to admit Big Tech is just an arm of a far left DC Federal Govt and an enemy of the people..FB and the rest act like Pravda in the old USSR..given how many of the upper management at Big Tech seem to have old country ties to Russia..this isn't surprising.
Assuming for the sake of argument that anything you described actually happened, in what way would that constitute "acting like Pravda"?
David, aren't you a scumbag lawyer?
The electric company, sick of being sued, should be allowed to shut off your electricity.
Your Republican doctor should refuse to set your broken arm or to treat your heart attack symptoms. You say, an elephant is sitting on my chest, and I am having trouble breathing. He should be able to say, your account has been deleted, you are cancelled. Try to comply with our guidelines for political views to avoid such suspensions in the future.
I don’t think you can decide to start a power, water, phone, etc. company and decide that you don’t serve everyone and so are not a common carrier. Now there are businesses that fall under the public accommodations part that might be able to do that, but that is because they are no longer public anymore.
Yet another Federalist Society fan and favorite selected for publication. What were the odds? Perhaps they would be similar to the probability that an academic blog could remain White and male in modern America.
Artie, aren't you white and male? Is it not high time you were replaced by a diverse? Diversity is what makes this country strong.