[ad_1]
Florida’s new social Media legislation is a double milestone: This is the first state law to regulate online content review, and it is almost certain that it will be the first law to be repealed in court.
On Monday, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, which greatly limits the ability of large social media platforms to audit or restrict user content.This Bill This is a legislative refinement of the recent outrage of Republicans against the so-called conservative prejudice, such as Twitter with Facebook Closing Donald Trump’s account and suppressing it notorious New York Post The Story of Hunter Biden. Most notably, it imposes a heavy fine of up to $250,000 per day on any platform that disables the accounts of candidates for political office and prohibits the platform from taking action against “news companies.”
However, it is difficult to imagine that any of these regulations will be implemented.
A. Michael Froomkin, a professor of law at the University of Miami, said: “This is obviously unconstitutional, and you will not even take the exam.” According to the accepted Supreme Court jurisprudence, the First Amendment prohibits private entities from being forced to publish or broadcast other people’s speeches. The prohibition of the “disintegration” of political candidates may be interpreted as a violation of the constitution. “This law looks like a political gift,” Frumkin said. “You become approachable and nothing bad happens because it is impossible to survive in court.” (The governor’s office did not respond to a request for comment.)
The constitution is not the only problem with the new law. It also contradicts section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is a federal law and generally holds that online platforms are not responsible for their content review decisions.Article 230 has become Object of resentment On both sides of the political channel, but for different reasons. Liberals tend to think that the law allows online platforms to get rid of too much harmful substances. On the other hand, conservative critics believe that this frees them from too much shackles, and worse, it allows them to censor conservatives under the guise of moderate content.
Regardless of the pros and cons of these criticisms, the fact is that Section 230 is still valid and, like many federal regulations, it clearly takes precedence over any state law that contradicts it. This is likely to waste a lot of time in any attempt to implement the “Stop Social Media Censorship Act.” Suppose a candidate serving in Florida repeatedly issued statements that violated Facebook’s policy on vaccine misinformation or racism, and Facebook banned his account. (For example, Laura Loomer (Laura Loomer), Self description “Proud Islam” Running for Congress If she files a lawsuit under the new law, she will seek to hold Facebook accountable for its decision to delete user content.But Article 230 Say As long as the platform does so in good faith, it is free to “restrict access or availability of material”. (Facebook and Twitter declined to comment on whether they plan to comply with Florida law or fight it in court. YouTube did not respond to requests for comment.)
Section 230 may preempt other aspects of Florida law that are less politically controversial, rather than prohibit demeaning politicians. For example, the “Florida Law” requires the platform to set up detailed due process permissions for users, including providing them with detailed information about why a certain piece of content was deleted, and allowing users to select strict chronological news without the need for algorithmic management. Both of these ideas have common-sense appeal among technological reformers throughout the political arena, and their versions have been included in the proposed federal legislation. But enforcing these regulations in court as part of state law is likely to violate Section 230, because it boils down to having a platform that is responsible for hosting or not hosting user-generated content. The Florida legislature has no authority to change this.
[ad_2]
Source link
