New N.Y. Law Aimed at Getting Social Media Platforms to Restrict "Hateful" Speech

Its operative provisions just require social media platforms to create a mechanism for taking complaints about such "hateful" speech; but the title is "hateful conduct prohibited," and it's clear the legislature is trying to get social media platforms to restrict such speech more.

N.Y. General Business Law § 394-ccc, just signed by the Governor yesterday (AB A7865A / SB S4511A) and scheduled to go into effect in six months, provides:

Social media networks; hateful conduct prohibited.

1. As used in this section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
   1. "hateful conduct" means the 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.
   2. "social media network" means service providers, which, for profit-making purposes, operate Internet platforms that are designed to enable users to share any content with other users or to make such content available to the public.
2. A social media network that conducts business in the state, shall provide and maintain a clear and easily accessible mechanism for individual users to report incidents of hateful conduct. Such mechanism shall be clearly accessible to users of such network and easily accessed from both a social media networks' application and website, and shall allow the social media network to provide a direct response to any individual reporting hateful conduct informing them of how the matter is being handled.
3. Each social media network shall have a clear and concise policy readily available and accessible on their website and application which includes how such social media network will respond and address the reports of incidents of hateful conduct on their platform.

4. Nothing in this section shall be construed
   1. as an obligation imposed on a social media network that adversely affects the rights or freedoms of any persons, such as exercising the right of free speech pursuant to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or
   2. to add to or increase liability of a social media network for anything other than the failure to provide a mechanism for a user to report to the social media network any incidents of hateful conduct on their platform and to receive a response on such report.
5. Any social media platform that knowingly fails to comply with the requirements of this section shall be assessed a civil penalty for such violation by the Attorney General not to exceed one thousand dollars. Each day such offense shall continue shall constitute a separate additional violation. In determination of any such violation, the Attorney General shall be authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and rules.

Despite the section heading—"hateful conduct prohibited"—this seems to just mandate platforms to provide a reporting mechanism, and to indicate how they will respond:. Presumably, "we will not take down any such material" or "we might or might not take down any such material, depending on our own editorial judgment" would be a legally permissible response.

Still, both the heading and the body of the law make clear that this regulation is aimed at pushing restrictions on certain viewpoints, and the mandate it imposes is limited to particular viewpoints. Compare a similar law mandating a mechanism to report "anti-American conduct," defined as "the use of a social media network to vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against the United States of America or any state, their governments, or any of their institutions"—both, it seems to me, are based on the viewpoint of the speech they are targeting, and both should therefore be unconstitutional.

By the way, it seems that sites that allow commenting, which enable users to share content with other users and to make it available to the public, would likely be treated as "social media networks" under the definition in the statute. That might be the Conspiracy, for instance, or for that matter Reason.com and many others. We are obviously much smaller than Facebook and Twitter, and only enable commenters to speak to other commenters, but that seems to be a difference of degree and not of kind for purposes of the statute: To be sure, we're not Internet service providers of the sort that provide a connection to the Internet, but neither are Facebook and Twitter (at least for most U.S. users).

I therefore have six months to figure out whether to post a policy (which would be "you can complain about whatever you please by e-mailing me at this address, but I will respond and address the complaints entirely based on my own discretion"), or perhaps to challenge the law.

Thanks to Stephen Green (VodkaPundit) for the pointer.

Comments

[DaivdBehar]

These social media are both utilities, and public accommodations. Viewpoint selection is simply impermissible according to the constitution. This is like shutting off the electricity or water to Democrats, or to a critic of the electric or water company.

[DaivdBehar]

This blog is a public accommodation. Eugene believes it is his living room. He does not have the right to expel people as if from his house. He invites people to his house and may expel and exclude them. His house is not open to the public. This blog is like the cake bakers. He may not do so from here.

[DaivdBehar]

"hateful conduct" means the 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.

Sounds like MSNBC. No one may criticize a Democrat. I suggest using, "D-word" instead. It stands for diverse and for Democrat.

[DaivdBehar]

This law is an embarrassing requirement for paper work. Of course, who has to be hired to write policies, to submit them, to modify them after regulators find deficiencies, to resubmit them, to track them? This is ridiculous lawyer make work. It is type of theft. Send the state the bills for this garbage law.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

As usual, my reaction is along the lines of "politicians sure are stoopid", which really means "why don't they get an honest job and stop messing about trying to tell everyone else how to live?".

But that assumes there are honest jobs which politicians could do. There is a long-standing whine from many people that modern life is too complicated, that tech jobs get harder and harder and require ever more college, which is obvious hogwash, but .... what if they are right, modern life is too complicated, and the result is that the dumbest of us can't find honest jobs, and turn to politics as a last resort?

Well, that would mean that modern life has been too complicated for thousands of years. But it's still an interesting idea.

[DaivdBehar]

"why don't they get an honest job and stop messing about trying to tell everyone else how to live?".

Because politics is soo loocrative.

[John F. Carr]

It's the liberal version of the Texas law that has been enjoined.

[Eugene Volokh]

I don't think that's quite right: On one hand, it's much less burdensome on the platforms than the Texas law is. On the other hand, it targets constitutionally protected speech in an overtly viewpoint-based way, which the Texas law generally is not.

(The Texas law does have a provision stating that the law "does not prohibit a social media platform from censoring expression that: ... directly incites criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group because of their race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, sex, or status as a peace officer or judge," but that seems likely to be interpreted as only covering constitutionally unprotected speech falling within the incitement or true threats exception.)

[SimonP]

The Texas law requires social media platforms to host, publish, and distribute speech with which they might disagree; it was passed specifically to protect "conservative" speakers, notwithstanding its facial neutrality; and it requires social media platforms to provide a complaint/policy mechanism for users.

The New York law does not require any social media platform to host, publish, or distribute, or to remove, so-called "hateful speech"; it was passed with an apparent intent to discourage such speech on platforms; and it requires social media platforms to publish a policy on how they approach such "hateful speech."

But the latter is the one that you think is constitutionally problematic. Gosh, who could have guessed.

The two laws overlap when it comes to certain content-based categories of speech, but whereas you construe the Texas law's provision so that it would be consistent with the First Amendment, you read the NY law's First Amendment savings clause out of the law entirely. Do you want to come off as a hack?

[MaddogEngineer]

Thanks for saving me the time of posting that. Government is not allowed to prohibit "hateful conduct" AKA merely particularly objectionable online speech. And neither can it mandate private actors moderate accordingly.

Once again, as far as the First Amendment goes, there is no such thing as prohibitable "hate speech".

[Brett Bellmore]

Typical of the (contemporary!) difference between conservatives and 'liberals' on free speech, the Texas law offends against the 1st amendment by prohibiting censorship, while the NY law offends against it by demanding censorship.

[shawn_dude]

Typical Reason.com misunderstanding of conservatism. Conservatism supports private property rights, including the right to limit speech in a private forum.

The NY law deserves what's coming to it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Obvious 1A violation, burdens press freedom.

[Ed Grinberg]

"1A violation" -- Yes, obviously.
"burdens press freedom" -- ???

[David Nieporent]

Lathrop thinks of social media companies as publishers and thus as press members.

And from that perspective, yes. Imagine a law telling the NYT that it had to provide a mechanism for readers to complain about objectionable content, and had to maintain a written policy of how it would handle those complaints.

[DaivdBehar]

David, social media are not publishers. They are the phone company. You let let your friends know about your family events by phone and by social media.

[tkamenick]

Lathrop thinks freedom of the press is only for institutional media.

[Stephen Lathrop]

tkamenick — I have said the contrary so many times, in so many ways, that it is hard to hear that without concluding it is a deliberate lie. I will assume I am wrong however, and that you really think that. Please quote something I said anywhere, in full context, that could ever have led anyone to that conclusion.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

As president Biden has informed us, the second amendment is not absolute. The first can’t be very far behind.

[Bored Lawyer]

Further blurring the line between state action and private action. At some point, that doctrine will have to be revisited by SCOTUS. (And spare me the lectures about the current law, which is that anything short of actual coercion by the government is still private action. The attempts by various state and federal actors to push the envelope on that and farm out censorship to private entities should cause one to rethink where to draw the line.)

[bevis the lumberjack]

How can elected officials who swore an oath to uphold the constitution even consider laws like this, much less approve them? Just goes to show how seriously they take their oath of office. Ought to just do away with swearing in ceremonies to avoid the obvious lie.

[Bored Lawyer]

"I solemnly swear that I will not do anything, except what I can get away with."

[Sarcastr0]

Or, maybe, they agree with you (and I) on what the state of the law is.

Or, maybe, they want to signal, but expect this will be struck down. Which is awful, IMO, but not unheard of.

Jumping straight to bad faith isn't needed.

[Seamus]

How can elected officials who swore an oath to uphold the constitution even consider laws like this, much less approve them?

They do it because they like the result, and because there is (as Al Gore might say) "no controlling legal authority" specifically saying what they want to do is unconstitutional. Also, their working assumption is that the constitution permits good things and prohibits bad things, and what they want to do is a good thing, so it must be constitutional (see, e.g., Nancy Pelosi on how the individual mandate falls within Congress's enumerated powers).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh is a busy culture warrior, so here is a head start concerning a compilation of this blog's policies:

1) Commenters are welcome to call for liberals (and some libertarians) to be gassed; placed down in landfills; lined up and shot; sent to Zyklon showers; raped; shot in the face as they open their front doors; and placed in woodchippers (feet-first or head-first) as often as they wish.

2) Commenters may be censored or banned for using terms such as "sl_ck-j_wed" to refer to conservatives.

3) Commenters are obviously welcome to use a vile racial slur as often as they wish, even as often as the management of this blog publishes a vile racial slur (approximately every three weeks). Commenters' use of the vile racial slur may even be encouraged, although readers are encouraged to be mindful of this blog's mission and to therefore arrange plausible deniability whenever possible in the context of publishing a vile racial slur for any or no reason.

4) Commenters may be censored or banned for making fun of conservatives, especially if done deftly.

5) Comments from readers using puns that disparage conservatives (such as "c_p s_ccor") may be vanished by blog management, with or without notice or explanation.

6) Comments from readers using puns that do not disparage conservatives (such as "phqueue") may be expressly applauded by blog management.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Pardon me, phoqueue, for botching your screen name.

[Seamus]

Conservatives are slack-jawed.
Conservatives are slack-jawed.
Conservatives are slack-jawed.

Also: conservatives are copsuckers.

And did you hear about the conservative who was so stupid that when he went to Rome he kissed his wife and beat the pope's foot to a pulp with a coal shovel.

There. Let's see if that tyrannical reign of censorship terror we're always hearing about is really in place.

[Eric VonSalzen]

It seems to me that there's a plausible argument that Facebook, Twitter, etc. could be considered public accommodations obliged to provide service to all. They provide a mechanism for communication among subscribers/users, analogous to a telephone company. (I don't claim that argument is correct, only that it's plausibe.) I don't see how Reason.com or the Volokh Conspiracy could be considered to be comparable. These sites exist to allow people affiliated with the site to make their writings available to the public, analagous to newspapers and magazines. Like newspapers and magazines they may allow readers to submit "letters to the editor", and some readers may even respond to such letters. But I don't read VC in order to communicate with Queen A or Bored Lawyer, and they surely don't read it to communicate with me. If VC decided to eliminate comments (as Althouse has done from time to time, for example), I would still read the posts that interest me. Is there anyone here who wouldn't do the same?

[Stephen Lathrop]

It seems to me that there's a plausible argument that Facebook, Twitter, etc. could be considered public accommodations obliged to provide service to all.

Because they are publishers protected by the press freedom clause of the 1A, that is not at all plausible.

[Krayt]

That ship sailed two years ago when Democrats fell all over each other threatening section 230 unless the social media companies censored harrassment, immediately applying it to their political opponents right before an election.

Even heads of other nations without First Amendments were taken aback, like Germany's.

[David Nieporent]

It seems to me that there's a plausible argument that Facebook, Twitter, etc. could be considered public accommodations obliged to provide service to all.

There is no such argument, and not only that, but you're misusing terminology, because public accommodations have no such obligation in the first place. (I think the term you meant to use was "common carrier." But assuming that's what you meant, Prof. Volokh might agree with you, but it's obviously wrong. The government cannot circumvent the 1A by relabeling something a "common carrier.")

But I don't read VC in order to communicate with Queen A or Bored Lawyer, and they surely don't read it to communicate with me. If VC decided to eliminate comments (as Althouse has done from time to time, for example), I would still read the posts that interest me. Is there anyone here who wouldn't do the same?

Absolutely.

[Krayt]

The same people screaming they are not common carriers, just a few years ago screamed for it, to stop cable companies from transmitting their own speech more cheaply on their own networks, with network neutrality.

Worthless sacks of shit, all!

[Sarcastr0]

Network neutrality is about ISPs. This is about platforms. Quite different speech implications.

You've really ignored some important distinctions in your quest for being able to call everyone sacks of shit.

You're not above it all; A pox on all their houses is a shitty tribal rooting interest like any other.

[shawn_dude]

Referring to the quality of comments posted here as "communication" is approaching hyperbole. Perhaps when the VC was hosted on the WP and the signal to noise ratio was much better, sure. Now, this is what we used to call a "war board" back during the ancient dial-up days.

The articles are sometimes interesting during the WP days, but the analysis and counter arguments is what brought me here. Specifically, in my case, debate about LGBT rights. I learned a lot. Then Reason happened and cogent argument was replaced by red-pilled shit-posting.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Then Reason happened and cogent argument was replaced by red-pilled shit-posting. "

Is that fair? There is more to this blog than Profs. Blackman and Volokh.
.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

did not Florida get their law recently shut down?

[shawn_dude]

The "Don't Say Gay" censorship law, the don't say "racism" censorship law, or is there another conservative example of
"free speech" you were thinking of?

[Brett Bellmore]

I've never heard of this "Don't say Gay" censorship law. Does it actually say, "Don't say Gay", or are you just a gullible idiot who doesn't realize that states actually are allowed to dictate what their own teachers say in classrooms?

[Michael P]

And just think: Literally two minutes before posting that comment, he complained about cogent argument in this comment section being replaced by trollish shit-posts.

[santamonica811]

Boy, I'm much less bothered by this than earlier posters. All I see here, *really*, is that you gotta have a mechanism for lodging a complaint. (Eugene points this out, in his OP, and notes that nothing suggests that an affected website has to actually take down anything.) Easy to comply, with, something along the following:

"1. Complaints about any posts, or comments to posts, should be sent to: [e-mail]
2. We anticipate being able to respond to each individual complaint within several days. If the volume of complaints is larger than expected, then this period might be as long as a few weeks. If the volume is less than expected, then it might be as soon as a few hours or one day.
3. Due to this website's full-throated support of free speech, we anticipate never, or almost never, taking down any written materials that do not fall outside First Amendment protection; but we reserve the right to do so, if the language violates my own personal standard of decency.
4. We reserve the right to label repeat, habitual, non-meritorious, complainers as "vexatious complainers." Vexatious complainers will receive one response per week to the collected group of all their complaints compiled over that week."

There. Done.

[Michael P]

If the only requirement is to have a mechanism to lodge a complaint, why are steps 2 and 4 there? (A: Because the law explicitly requires the site to respond to complaints. That seems like more than just *really* a mechanism for lodging a complaint.)

[David Nieporent]

The law does not explicitly require the site to respond to complaints. The law explicitly requires the site to publish its policy for responding to such complaints. That policy could be, "We don't."

The law also requires that the reporting mechanism allow the website to provide a direct response; it does not actually require that the website do so.

Of course, that's implied… but that's the opposite of explicit.

[DaivdBehar]

David, could you be chosen as an author of a policy manual, and greatly enriched by this law?

[DaivdBehar]

If the answer is yes, you need to disclose that in every answer you post, so people may judge your self interest bias.

[Michael P]

[...] the failure to provide a mechanism for a user to report to the social media network any incidents of hateful conduct on their platform and to receive a response on such report.

Emphasis added.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That looks pretty explicit to me.

[David Nieporent]

Did you try reading the whole sentence, rather than just ellipsing out the part that refutes your position?

Nothing in this section shall be construed … (b) to add to or increase liability of a social media network for anything other than the failure to provide a mechanism for a user to report to the social media network any incidents of hateful conduct on their platform and to receive a response on such report."

Does that say, "Social media networks must provide a response on such report"? No. In two ways.

First, even looking at just the fragment, it says, "Social media networks must provide a mechanism for users to receive a response." A mechanism is not the same thing as a report.

Second, it doesn't even say that; it's a negative provision that says how the law shouldn't be construed; it does not itself impose any liability. You would need to find a provision that did impose such liability.

[Michael P]

It clearly says there must be a mechanism for them to report abuse and receive a response about their report. A single mechanism, not with a potential response. That mechanism is triggered by reporting abuse, not by the provider deciding the report deserves a response.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

First, even looking at just the fragment, it says, "Social media networks must provide a mechanism for users to receive a response." A mechanism is not the same thing as a report.

You interpretation is idiotic at best, and your paraphrasing extremely dishonest. It does NOT say what you quote above. It says first, "provide a mechanism for a user to report to the social media network any incidents of hateful conduct on their platform" and follows that with, "and to receive a response on such report." The latter requirement would be utterly pointless if the response were not required when the reporting mechanisms was used to submit a report.

[shawn_dude]

It's already 90% done. Upper right corner: "Flag Comment." A slight extension to that and a posted policy page is all this needs.

[shawn_dude]

Er... sorry EscherEnigma... I posted before scrolling down. You nailed it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Due to this website's full-throated support of free speech, "

You left out the 'we're libertarian . . . just ask us' part.

[EscherEnigma]

"I therefore have six months to figure out whether to post a policy [...]"

Whatcha talkin' 'bout Willis?

You already have a report button on every comment, and you already have a posted policy (it's right above the comment section).

[Life of Brian]

Um, whatCHOO talking about?

. . . which includes how such social media network will respond and address the reports of incidents of hateful conduct on their platform.

Such mechanism shall be clearly accessible to users of such network and easily accessed from both a social media networks' application and website, and shall allow the social media network to provide a direct response to any individual reporting hateful conduct informing them of how the matter is being handled.

Please share with the class how currently posted policy/black-hole "flag comment" button satisfies all that.

[EscherEnigma]

"We do not moderate [...]" answers the first bold text.

To the second, you know that Reason has your e-mail address, right? You click that button, they have everything they need to e-mail you saying "cool story bro".

This isn't complicated.

[wreckinball]

I’m sure they’ll just stick to actual hate speech . It won’t be politicized at all! Ha

[Ed Grinberg]

You said WHAT about our President?!

[Jimmy the Dane]

The Left will use every mechanism at its disposal to crack down on free speech. This is well known by all and the truth.

[Krayt]

Yes, but keep in mind we just got out of thousands of years, all recorded history, of the other side cancelling anyone who was gay, or supported gay rights, and so on.

How novel it was brave Disney voluntarily offered partner benefits. 'member how Republicans tried to outlaw that? Good times!

My lament was the mantra for those thousands of years was just "let us be free. Just stop throwing us in jail!" Yet when the long march of persuasion, and death of old guard came around, the new comers now try to rule with an iron fist.

Nobody learns the lessons of history.

[ReaderY]

First Amendment issues and questions of whose speech it is aside, it seems a bit of a difficulty to have one state require all social media platforms to do one thing, and then another state require them to do the opposite.

[EscherEnigma]

Only if they try to control what that social media company does in other states. For example, Google could trivially show different "Google Doodles" based on your ISP, showing visitors from Texas one thing and visitors from California another.

In fact, Google, and every Social Media company out there, already do that in regards to Germany (where Nazi stuff is subject to a harsh filter) and China (where everything is subject to a harsh filter).

Where it becomes difficult is when you have one government trying to exercise control over what you do in other jurisdictions: for example, Texas's law would have prohibited Twitter from hiding a pro-Nazi post in Germany. Texas's law went further still: it was prohibited to just ban Texas. So Twitter would have *had to* accept Texan users, and been *prohibited* from hiding their pro-Nazi stuff.

But as long as the governments stick to their own jurisdiction (Germany can prohibit Nazi content in Germany, Texas can prohibit hiding Nazi content in Texas) there's no conflict.

[David Nieporent]

Texas's law went further still: it was prohibited to just ban Texas. So Twitter would have *had to* accept Texan users,

People said that, but obviously not. Twitter is not located in Texas. If Twitter doesn't accept Texan users, then Texas has no jurisdiction and the law doesn’t apply.

[ReaderY]

And I agree that the State of New York can’t tell platforms what speech it wants policed unless that speech is within First Amendment exceptions.

Whether the speech is the platform’s or the user’s, it’s definitely not the State of New York’s.

[Jerry B.]

More of the 2024 Democratic platform. Mayor Lightfoot says we're all guilty until proven innocent, and New York says freedom of speech means freedom of speech that the government approves of.

[Longtobefree]

Every straight white male can have the democrat party platform taken down based on section '1', item 'a'.

[ThanksForTheFish]

"the 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,..."

Let it go Into effect. Let's see how long it lasts when progressives can't talk badly about evangelicals, use the term white privilege, or generally say any of the things they do.

[Ben_]

The "rules" won’t apply to them for [reasons]. The Attorney General of New York will fill in the [reasons] later.

I wish people would stop making this mistake. Elites and leftists only make rules to bind others. They always find a way to exempt themselves.

[Michael P]

For example: YouTube has a policy where they will delete videos that question the outcome of the 2020 US presidential election. Videos questioning the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election are allowed.

[Ben_]

Can you make an explicit exception to your commenting policy encouraging hateful speech to be directed at the individual New York legislators who voted for this bill? And the New York Governor and Attorney General? Mention them by name.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

Describing president Biden as a dufus would meet the vilify standard!

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Google Groups has a mechanism for reporting someone in a newsgroup spewing abuse. But Google never responds and never has any effect on the abuser. The only response to a complaint for such abuse as fighting words or violent words or hateful content is to "disappear" it from the screen, at least the screen of the complainer but probably not from the screen of the abuser or anyone else looking on.

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Queenie. How is your day going, Honey? No doubt you are doing great things today.

[Bored Lawyer]

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not. I am all for private rights to do as you will with your property. In the absence of governmental pressure, any platform should be free to censor as it wishes. But when the censorship is the result of governmental pressure, it does not undermine libertarianism to point out that something is not right.

[Bored Lawyer]

Now you are talking about drawing lines. Mere criticism would not do it, IMO. This law goes far beyond that. It sets up specific requirements for social media platforms, subject to civil penalties. As Prof. Volokh writes, there is a clear intention to produce a particular result, i.e., censorship of certain content that New York State cannot directly censor without running afoul of the First Amendment.

[Bored Lawyer]

Maybe. I have not worked out where to draw it, exactly. But there is no doubt that lately the envelope has been pushed on this point, with politicians attempting to pressure private companies to do what they are Constitutionally barred from doing. .

[Krayt]

That has a name. It's called "regulation by raised eyebrow."

[Seamus]

So would, say, a President ordering the FCC to examine the licenses of networks fall in your line?

Depends. If its Richard Nixon checking on left-wing media on his enemies' list, then it's a dangerous attack on the first amendment. If it's Joe Biden looking into Fox News, then it's a necessary and noble defense of Our Democracy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, I don't think it can prohibit hateful "conduct", either, depending on what you mean by "hateful conduct". It isn't just speech that's constitutionally protected, and that some people find "hateful".

I mean, I put anchovies on my pizza.

[Krayt]

Notice the government thugs using weasel words, trying their old trick of defining speech as conduct so they can outlaw it. They way the lie, "hateful conduct", then immediately begin describing speech.

I will not offer asinine disclaimers about how awful that speech is, but must be protected out of a sense of free speech importance, because that is silly. The pile of bodies censors sit atop is miles higher than anythig else save disease, and they have a big hand in that, too.

One who demands censorship of harrassment should get on their knees and pray to the universe for forgiveness of their participation in it.

[MaddogEngineer]

I also said "hate speech" to both narrow and be more specific about "hateful conduct", which frankly I don't understand in the social media context of this law. Sure, Professor Volokh quotes the law, but what it describes, and purports to require social media companies to prohibit, sure sounds like speech and not conduct. But I understand the instinct to try to call it something else, dressing it up so it doesn't inevitably run afoul of the First Amendment.

In a comment above, Professor Volokh also mentioned constitutionally unprotected speech (incitement/ true threats exception). Those are also not the kind of speech I mean are not prohibitable when I'm talking about "hateful conduct/speech".

[Brett Bellmore]

Roosevelt's "bully" pulpit meant a "great" pulpit. This is more "bully" in the sense of bullying.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, I put anchovies on my pizza.

That is not only not constitutionally protected, but it's one of the four enumerated crimes in the constitution.

[Bored Lawyer]

How many witnesses do you need? Do fish count?

[bernard11]

Pineapple is another.

[David Nieporent]

Not according to Ginsburg in Yates.

[Brett Bellmore]

They go amazingly well with anchovies, don't they?

[Life of Brian]

I used to think that too. But on homemade pizza night a few years ago I took a flyer on ham, pineapple, and red bell peppers. Total game changer.

[Ed Grinberg]

Yeah. I sincerely believe the Constitution says you have to bake me a cake. With sprinkles. Now, hop to it!

[Krayt]

In the case of censorship, yes, they are liars.

They aren't arguing getting rid of the first amendment. They are legislating contrary to it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's actually a weakness in modern libertarian theory, failing to recognize that private collusion that doesn't technically violate a naïve understanding of the NAP really can be a serious threat to liberty. The classic example is the owners of all the property surrounding you entering into an agreement prohibiting you from entering their property renders you a prisoner.

The early theorists of libertarianism had no trouble understanding this, but that's because they'd reasoned their way into libertarianism, and largely could see the weak points. A lot of modern libertarians adopted the philosophy full formed, and transformed it into almost a parody of itself on account of not really understanding the more iffy details.

[bernard11]

I intend never to find out.

Anchovies are fine. As I've said before, the de-anchovization of Caesar's salad is a sign of national decline.

[Seamus]

They go amazingly well with anchovies, don't they?

Indeed they do. Straight into the garbage can.

[Brett Bellmore]

Salad Niçoise, too.

[Seamus]

Anchovies in Caesar salad dressing is fine. Anchovies on pizza is an abomination before God and man.

[David Nieporent]

So an actual thing, compared to a made up thing? (A double made up thing, because the FCC doesn't have any jurisdiction over cable news.)

[David Nieporent]

That's not a "classic example"; it's something completely made up that doesn’t happen in the real world.