The 5th Circuit Court of the US has ruled that a Texas law banning social media companies from censoring users’ viewpoints is constitutional. Although small progress in combating social media censorship, this ruling is undoubtedly a victory for those who value free speech in the digital age.
Trade groups NetChoice (Orwellian name there) and the Computer & Communications Industry Association were the plaintiffs in the case, and were challenging the Texas law on media censorship as unconstitutional. The court, however, ruled against this argument, upholding the law that requires equal treatment of all speech by these companies.
The plaintiffs claim that such a law would put “foreign propaganda and extremism on equal footing with decent Internet users.” Ah, yes, these tech companies are just so concerned about the safety of average Americans. The plaintiffs also tried to reinterpret the first amendment as “the law that gives us the right to curate free speech.”
On the subject of the idea that allowing free speech on media platforms puts people at risk of extremism, the notion is ludicrous. Censoring “extreme” viewpoints only drives those individuals to other locations. In addition, one is allowing tech giants to decide what “extreme” is. Perhaps there are some who would love Facebook and Twitter to become the arbiters of political debate, but most people have the sense to realize the danger in putting this power into the hands of a few monopolistic corporations.
And if you don’t want people to be tempted by “extreme” ideologies in the first place, then maybe you should tell the government to stop wasting trillions in endless wars while infrastructure crumbles at home, letting 500,000 Americans go bankrupt from medical bills each year, demonizing half the country for voting in a way you didn’t like, and letting tech giants decide what constitutes medical misinformation and design algorithms to purposely promote certain political viewpoints over others. Try to take actions to build societal trust instead of destroying it. Few seem willing to explore the causes of why people are drawn towards ideologies that promote hate towards their fellow Americans, as those questions are difficult.
On the second point, the first amendment certainly doesn’t allow for the “curation” of free speech. The plaintiffs have tried to argue that they are like newspapers, and therefore have the right to curate content. Social media companies are not newspapers, in case that is news to you. Social media companies involve large numbers of people expressing their own viewpoints in a marketplace. Social media companies are like the modern-day public square. They are an outlet for people to express themselves, and these companies wield great power over Americans’ First Amendment rights.
Interestingly, one of the judges on the appeals court panel, who was nominated by George Bush, expressed doubts in allowing a law to dictate the actions of private companies. This hesitancy might be common among conservative judges who are traditionally against government intervention.
The Texan law regarding free speech is expected to go into effect once the appeals court gives written instructions to the district court that originally decided the case. The law will allow both individuals in Texas and the state of Texas itself to sue companies that censor viewpoints by blocking or banning people.
The plaintiffs may either demand a rehearing or take the case to the Supreme Court. Going to the Supreme Court may be their next course of action, because in May, the 11th Circuit Atlanta-based Court decided that a similar Florida law was unconstitutional.
Censorship is a tool of the powerful against the powerless. I wish that former champions of free speech like the ACLU were not absent from this critical debate, and that free speech was not allowed to become a “right-wing issue,” but that’s the situation as of now.
Green Humanist 