Victory! Federal Court Halts Florida's Censorious Social Media Law Privileging Politicians' Speech Over Everyday Users – EFF

wp header logo 75
Spread the love

A federal court on Thursday night blocked Florida’s effort to force internet platforms to host political candidates and media entities online speech, ruling that the law violated the First Amendment and a key federal law that protects users’ speech. We had expected the court to do so.
The Florida law, S.B. 7072, prohibited large online intermediaries—save for those that also happened to own a theme park in the state—from terminating politicians’ accounts or taking steps to de-prioritize their posts, regardless of whether it would have otherwise violated the sites’ own content policies. The law also prevented services from moderating posts by anyone who qualified as “journalistic enterprise” under the statute, which was so broadly defined as to include popular YouTube and Twitch streamers.
EFF and Protect Democracy filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, NetChoice v. Moody, arguing that although online services frequently make mistakes in moderating users’ content, disproportionately harming marginalized voices, the Florida statute violated the First Amendment rights of platforms and other internet users. Our brief pointed out that the law would only have “exacerbate[ed] existing power disparities between certain speakers and average internet users, while also creating speaker-based distinctions that are anathema to the First Amendment.”
In granting a preliminary injunction barring Florida officials from enforcing the law, the court agreed with several arguments EFF made in its brief. As EFF argued, the “law itself is internally inconsistent in that it requires ‘consistent’ treatment of all users, yet by its own terms sets out two categories of users for inconsistent special treatment.”
The court agreed, writing that the law “requires a social media platform to apply its standards in a consistent manner, but . . . this requirement is itself inconsistent with other provisions.”
The court also found that the law intruded upon online services’ First Amendment rights to set their own content moderation policies, largely because it mandated differential treatment of the content of certain online speakers, such as political candidates, over others. These provisions made the law “about as content-based as it gets,” the court wrote.
Because the law amounted to a content- and viewpoint-based restriction on speech, Florida was required to show that it had a compelling interest in the restrictions and that it doesn’t burden any more or less speech than is necessary to advance that interest.
The court ruled the Florida law failed that test. “First, leveling the playing field—promoting speech on one side of an issue or restricting speech on the other—is not a legitimate state interest,” the court wrote.
Further, the law’s speech restrictions and burdens swept far beyond addressing concerns about online services silencing certain voices, as the court wrote that the law amounted to “an instance of burning the house to roast the pig.”
As EFF wrote in its brief, inconsistent and opaque content moderation by large online media services is a legitimate problem that leads to online censorship of too much important speech. But coercive measures like S.B. 7072 are not the answer to this problem:
The decisions by social media platforms to cancel accounts and deprioritize posts may well be scrutinized in the court of public opinion. But these actions, as well as the other moderation techniques barred by S.B. 7072, are constitutionally protected by binding Supreme Court precedent, and the state cannot prohibit, proscribe, or punish them any more that states can mandate editorial decisions for news media.
EFF is pleased that the court has temporarily prohibited Florida from enforcing S.B. 7072 and we look forward to the court issuing a final ruling striking the law down. We would like to thank our local counsel, Christopher B. Hopkins, at McDonald Hopkins LLC for his help in filing our brief.
Facebook needs to be reined in. Lawmakers and everyday users are mad, having heard former Facebook employee Frances Haugen explain how Facebook valued growth and engagement over everything else, even health and safety. But Congress’s latest effort—to regulate algorithms that recommend content on social media platforms—misses the mark.We need…
Within a day of Twitter fact-checking President Donald Trump’s May 2020 false tweets about mail-in voting, federal officials began trying to find out how much government agencies spent to advertise on social media. This inquiry was likely part of a planned effort to cut that funding, according to records
In a disastrous ruling for online expression, innovation and competition, a federal appeals court has held that internet intermediaries are on the hook for expensive litigation and potential damages for violating a person’s “right of publicity,” (i.e., the right to control the commercial use of your persona). All because…
Tech platforms, especially the largest ones, have a problem—there’s a lot of offensive junk online. Many lawmakers on Capitol Hill keep coming back to the same solutionblaming Section 230.What lawmakers don’t notice is that a lot of the people posting that offensive junk get stopped, again and…
A year ago today, President Trump issued an Executive Order that deputized federal agencies to retaliate against online social media services on his behalf, a disturbing and unconstitutional attack on internet free expression.To mark this ignoble anniversary, EFF and the Center for Democracy & Technology are making records
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has allowed a civil lawsuit to move forward against Snapchat, a smartphone social media app, brought by the parents of three teenage boys who died tragically in a car accident after reaching a maximum speed of 123 miles per hour….
President Joe Biden on Friday rescinded a dangerous and unconstitutional Executive Order issued by President Trump that threatened internet users’ ability to obtain truthful information online and retaliated against services that fact-checked the former president. The Executive Order called on multiple federal agencies to punish private online social media…
President Joe Biden should rescind a dangerous and unconstitutional Executive Order issued by President Trump that continues to threaten internet users’ ability to obtain accurate and truthful information online, six organizations wrote in a letter sent to the president on Wednesday.The organizations, Rock The Vote, Voto Latino, Common Cause,…
Back to top

source

Read Previous

Can AI Revolutionise India's Judicial System? – Analytics India Magazine

Read Next

The Big Deal in Amazon’s Antitrust Case – The New York Times

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.