The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Does a dead horse have a right to self-defense when beaten?
Episode 386 of the Cyberlaw Podcast
Federal district judge Robert Pitman has enjoined enforcement of Texas's law regulating social media censorship. In this episode, the ruling sparks a fight between me and Nate Jones that ranges from how much weight should be given to the speech rights of social media to the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict imposed by Facebook when it decided he was guilty and wouldn't let anyone disagree. On the merits, as before, we agreed that the Obama appointee was on pretty solid ground (for now) in applying the Tornillo line of cases saying that government should not directly regulate the editorial judgments of publishers. But the judge's ruling on the transparency and due process requirements of the law suggests to me that he wasn't prepared to give the law a fair shake. So look for a competitive appeal on the topic and quite possibly a more than competitive certiorari petition as well. By the time we stop beating this horse, he's long past any possible right of self-defense.
Megan Stifel has an easier task: Explaining cybersecurity recommendations for rail and other surface transportation companies. The advice is mostly the kind of simple concepts that could have been offered in the 90s, so we both puzzle over the fierce resistance from industry. Maybe it's the 24-hour requirement to notify TSA of cyber incidents, though I suggest reasons why industry shouldn't be as worried by this requirement as by a similar deadline for data breach notifications.
Nate and I explore proposals from the Biden administration to muster a group of like-minded countries in a campaign to curb sales of surveillance gear to authoritarian regimes. No doubt the initiative was reinforced by news that U.S. State Department phones were recently hacked with spyware from Israel. But I think the whole project fails for a simple reason: authoritarian governments can buy all the surveillance gear they need from China, which is happy to sell it. In the absence of credible enforcement, an international effort to condemn such sales is empty virtue signaling.
I mock an eminently mockable story from the Markup claiming that the PredPol crime prediction software is racist because it urges the police to patrol more poor black neighborhoods than rich white ones without asking whether that's where crime might be concentrated. Then, when the authors finally notice the overlap between neighborhoods with lots of arrests and neighborhoods recommended for heavy patrolling, they suddenly claim that the prediction software must be useless because the same results could be reached without the software.
Speaking of stupid, Megan explains how a "smart contract" turned out to be anything but, allowing hackers to steal $31 million in digital coin. I wonder exactly how much the hacker's feat differs from really good lawyering.
Nate and I look at how well Russia is doing in bringing Twitter to heel with a mobile slowdown. Twitter hasn't broken yet, but it's clear that the authoritarians of the world are slowly winning their battle with Silicon Valley.
Megan tells us about a cybersecurity professional at Ubiquiti who decided to stop riding with the hounds and to ride instead with the fox. Bad choice; we know how fox hunts usually end for the fox, and this story is no exception.
In updates, I remind listeners of the elaborate gas-lighting effort by Jeff Bezos when he tried to blame the Saudis and the National Enquirer for his brother-in-law's leak of text messages that were deeply embarrassing for the CEO. All the hacking and extortion investigations that Bezos managed to trump up are over now, and the verdict is in: The Saudis didn't do it.
Finally, Megan and I note a Wall Street Journal article on how tough it is to be a spy in a world of smartphones, biometrics, and universal surveillance cameras. Our reaction: Yup.
Download the 386th Episode (mp3)
You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!
The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.
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
"in applying the Tornillo line of cases saying that government should not directly regulate the editorial judgments of publishers."
But of course, the law specifies that they are NOT publishers, so forget that line of thought.
Bingo
Facebook continues falling all over itself, censoring things those in power demand of them, openly and publically, lest the Sword of Damoclese over them fall, severing section 230 and cost them hundreds of billions in stock valuation, as lawsuits drag them back down to the normal mortal realm of international megacorps, like auto companies and oil companies.
Like the toady in the Loony Tunes, to the Boss Mugsy, "I did good, boss! I did good! I shut them up!"
Its funny. Almost from the beginning of the whole SJW fad they were about as on board as you can get and they continue to double down to try to please the mob. But the hivemind has decided they are to blame for Trump 2016 even though they tried their best to help hillary, so they are cast out and irredeemable.
To be fair—if someone told me the Michigan school shooter was engaged in self defense I would think they were nuts….I just happened to watch the Rittenhouse video and so I could literally see he was engaged in self defense.
“Private companies that use editorial judgment to choose whether to publish content — and, if they do publish content, use editorial judgment to choose what they want to publish — cannot be compelled by the government to publish other content.”
So, they're publishers, and should be treated as such under S230?
Sometimes they are publishers, and sometimes they aren't, depending on what they're doing.
But there is no such thing as "treated as such under § 230." That law doesn't say what people on Twitter told you that it said.
I'll have to take your word for what Twitter says.
If they "cannot be compelled to publish", they must be publishers. If they are publishers, they are liable for their content.
If they are not publishers, then they're not.
What part of S230 did you forget to read?
The part where it says "if they are publishers, they are liable for their content."
Hint: § 230 says that they're not. Period. It doesn't matter what you call them. They are not liable for content contributed by other people.
"Does a dead horse have a right to self-defense when beaten?"
Only if the horse has left the barn. 😉
"Does a dead horse have a right to self-defense when beaten?"
As long as it can vote, it can exercise all other rights as well.