Push to rein in social media sweeps the states – POLITICO
The states efforts in the absence of federal action could test governments ability to regulate speech, while forcing some of the nations wealthiest tech companies to fight an array of legal battles against laws that could upend their business models. These fights will also present courts with a fundamental debate about how the First Amendment plays out in the online age, including the companies own rights to decide what content they host on their platforms.
Many legal scholars see glaring flaws in some states approaches. The government cannot tell a private company what speech it can or cannot carry, provided that speech is constitutionally protected, said Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S. Naval Academy who has written two books about online speech.
Industry groups have warned that some of the laws especially the ones in Texas and Florida could wreak havoc on how they handle content worldwide.
You cannot have a state-by-state internet, Kosseff said. When you step back and look at the possibility of having 50 different state laws on content moderation some of which might differ or might conflict that becomes a complete disaster.
The bills fall into four major categories: More than two dozen, pushed by Republicans, seek to prevent companies from censoring content or blocking users. Others, pushed by Democrats, aim to require companies to provide mechanisms for reporting hate speech or misinformation. Lawmakers of both parties support proposals to protect children from addiction to social media. A fourth, also with bipartisan support, would impose transparency requirements.
Here is POLITICOS look at the state of play:
Conservatives efforts to ban social media from restricting users content ramped up last year, after the major social media platforms booted then-President Donald Trump following his supporters Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
Since then, legislatures in more than two dozen states the vast majority Republican-led have introduced bills aimed at preventing social media companies from censoring users viewpoints or kicking off political candidates.
Two of those have become law: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill (SB 7072) into law in March 2021, later updated this past April, prohibiting tech platforms from ousting political candidates. Texas followed suit last September with a law (HB 20) banning social media companies from restricting online viewpoints.
Now those laws are going through the courts, where tech companies have succeeded so far with arguments that the measures infringe on their First Amendment right to decide what to content to host. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in May that Floridas law was largely unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court blocked the Texas law while an appellate court considers an industry challenge against the statute.
Proponents of the laws say they protect individuals free speech rights to share their views on the platforms. But Scott Wilkens, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said the Texas and Florida laws are pretty clear violations of the platforms First Amendment rights to speak themselves by actually deciding what they will and wont publish.
Social media companies have argued that if the Texas law goes back into effect, it may make it harder to remove hate speech, such as a racist manifesto allegedly posted online by the perpetrator of a mid-May mass shooting in Buffalo, N.Y. The major platforms eventually removed that posting after the shooting.
Additionally, the Texas and Florida laws had they been in effect could have left Facebook open to lawsuits for their decision in June to remove an ad from Missouri Republican Senate candidate Eric Greitens calling for the hunting of so-called Republicans In Name Only. Facebook took down the ad because the company said it violated policies prohibiting the incitement of violence. Twitter labeled the ad as violating its policy against abusive behavior, but left it visible to users due to the publics interest.
Other Republican-led legislatures have introduced similar bills in Ohio, Georgia, Tennessee and Michigan that would prohibit social media companies from censoring religious or political speech, or would ban platforms from removing political candidates.
Democrats have long pushed social media companies to do more to take down misinformation and disinformation, as well posts attacking people along lines of race, gender or sexual orientation. Legislatures in primarily Democratic-run states including New York and California have introduced bills requiring social media companies to establish mechanisms for users to report hate speech to the platforms.
New York is the only state where such a proposal has successfully been enacted. Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul signed S. 4511 in early June as part of a package of 10 bills aimed at curbing gun violence after the Buffalo shooting. The new law requires social media networks to make it possible for individuals to report hate speech on the platforms in a publicly accessible way and says the companies must directly respond to anyone who reports such speech. Companies could face fines of up to $1,000 a day if they dont comply.
The law takes effect in December.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul attends a press conference on August 26, 2021, in New York City.|Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Democratic New York state Sen. Anna Kaplan introduced the bill last year in hopes of curbing the radicalizing effects of social media. We are not in any way telling social media what policy to put in, she said in an interview. Its not about violating the First Amendment. Its about just empowering the users to be able to report hateful content.
But NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, lobbying groups representing tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Google, are analyzing whether the new Texas law could lead to First Amendment infringements. Both groups filed lawsuits against the Florida and Texas laws.
Were concerned about the laws constitutionality, and are raising those concerns with state lawmakers, said Chris Marchese, NetChoices counsel, said in an interview after the New York law was signed.
He said the New York law could violate the First Amendment because its definition of hateful conduct is too broad, and covers speech thats protected by the Constitution. He added that even though New York is different from Texas and Florida, the temptation for the government to step in is incredibly high no matter where you live.
In California, Democratic Assemblyman James Gallagher of Yuba City introduced a bill (AB 1114) that would require social media companies to explain how they handle content that involves obscenity, threats and incitements of violence that are not constitutionally protected. The bill failed to advance this session.
New York also has several pending bills that would require social media companies to provide ways to report election- and vaccine-related misinformation.
Legislation addressing childrens safety on social media platforms has some bipartisan support. Several bills have been introduced following last years revelations from Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen that Instagrams algorithms were pushing unhealthy body images on young girls.
Legislators from both parties in California and Minnesota have introduced bills to address the addictive nature of social media.
The California Assembly passed a bipartisan bill (AB 2408) in late May aiming to protect kids from addictive social media features by making the platforms liable to lawsuits and fines if their products knowingly harm children under the age of 18. A child user or their parent or guardian would be able to sue a platform if the child becomes addicted to a platform. Penalties in a successful class action brought under the bill would be at least $1,000 per individual, potentially adding up to very large sums given the number of children using social media in California.
The bill advanced through a California Senate committee in June and is expected to go to the floor in August.
Tech advocates are raising free-speech objections about the measure.
This has really serious First Amendment problems, said David Greene, the civil liberties director of the digital rights nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Dylan Hoffman, a California lobbyist for tech trade group TechNet, said the bill goes directly after platforms algorithms which are used to moderate user content and therefore infringes on their First Amendment speech rights.
Its clearly about the content and seeking to regulate any feature that you claim as addictive well, whats more addictive than showing good content? he said. Thats the inherent problem with this bill because you cant divorce those two ideas.
The bills sponsor, Republican state Rep. Jordan Cunningham, disputed that argument. It doesnt touch or regulate content at all, he said in an interview. Nothing in the bill tells any social media company what they can or cannot allow users to post on their platform.
Kosseff said ultimately he doesnt believe that going after algorithms gets rid of the free speech issue. He added, If youre restricting the ability for speech to be distributed, then youre restricting speech.
However, Wilkens, of the Knight First Amendment Institute, said that while the bill may implicate the First Amendment, it doesnt mean that it violates the First Amendment. He said that while its still up for interpretation, the legislation if it became law may be held constitutional because the states interest here in protecting young girls seems to be a very strong interest.
A bill (HF 3724) in Minnesotas Democratically controlled House also would bar social media companies from using algorithms directed at children, but it failed to advance this session. It would ban social media platforms with more than 1 million users from using algorithms directed at individuals under the age of 18. Companies could face fines of up to $1,000 per violation.
Legislators in Mississippi, Tennessee, New York and California have introduced bills this year requiring platforms to provide transparency reports on their content moderation decisions. Both the Florida and Texas social media laws have provisions requiring such reports. The 11th Circuit upheld disclosure and transparency disclosure requirements in Floridas social media law in its May decision striking down other parts of the law.
We have made the argument that there is room for government regulation in disclosure requirements, Wilkens said. He said he thinks those bills may very well be constitutional under the First Amendment.
This bipartisan approach on the state level is one federal legislators are contemplating emulating. Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) have drafted a bill to mandate that companies disclose some of their data and explain how algorithms amplify certain content.
It wont solve the problem, but it will help us identify what the problem might actually be, and increase the chances that Congress might responsibly legislate, Coons said in an interview.
Link:
Push to rein in social media sweeps the states - POLITICO
- Trump admin waffles in court on whether pro-Palestinian foreigners have full First Amendment rights - Politico - July 8th, 2025 [July 8th, 2025]
- Airlines deportation deal with ICE sparks protests and boycott campaign, leading to First Amendment battle - The Free Speech Project - July 8th, 2025 [July 8th, 2025]
- Trump Judges Find No First Amendment Problem With Florida Forcing Teachers to Misgender Themselves - Balls and Strikes - July 8th, 2025 [July 8th, 2025]
- High Court To Hear Street Preacher's First Amendment Case - Law360 - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- The Columbus Connection First Amendment, Independence Day Thoughts, and Happy Birthday CCN - Columbus County News - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Paramounts Trump Lawsuit Settlement: Curtain Call for the First Amendment? (Guest Column) - IMDb - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Fourth of July is a reminder to understand your First Amendment rights - The News Journal - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Big Tech Can't Hide Behind the First Amendment Anymore | Opinion - Newsweek - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- FIRE amicus brief: First Amendment bars using schoolkid standards to silence parents' speech - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- The First Amendment Protects CNN's Reporting on ICEBlock and Iran - Reason Magazine - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- MCPS to pay $125K to two county residents who sued over alleged First Amendment violations - Bethesda Magazine - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Commentary: Winter Garden arrest threat violated First Amendment rights - Orlando Sentinel - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- First Amendment Expert Responds To BHUSD Policy - Hoover Institution - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Donald Trump: the surprise force who saved the First Amendment - Washington Times - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Paramount Will Pay $16 Million in Settlement With Trump Over 60 Minutes Interview - First Amendment Watch - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Trump Judges Reject First Amendment Challenge and Uphold Florida Law Requiring Teachers to Use Only Pronouns that Align with their Gender at Birth -... - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Justice Thomas sounds alarm on courts misapplying First Amendment in political speech cases - Courthouse News - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- 'The full rigor of the Court's resources': Judge warns Trump against witness 'retribution' in First Amendment case over threatened deportations - Law... - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Federal Appellate Court Finds that School Board President Violated First Amendment in Restricting Followers on Social Media - JD Supra - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Protecting Kids Shouldnt Mean Weakening the First Amendment - Public Knowledge - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Opinion - Jesse Green: Congress must not violate First Amendment in fight against anti-semitism - Northern Kentucky Tribune - June 29th, 2025 [June 29th, 2025]
- VICTORY: New York high school to strengthen First Amendment protections following FIRE lawsuit - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and... - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- FCCs First Amendment Tour Arrives in Kentucky - The Daily Yonder - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- ACLU of Pennsylvania Applauds Passage of Legislation to Expand First Amendment Protections in the Commonwealth - ACLU of Pennsylvania - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- FIRE to court: AI speech is still speech and the First Amendment still applies - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- Podcast: Broadcast Journalism, First Amendment, and the Future - Wisconsin Broadcasters Association - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- Advertising Companies Cave to the FTC. Media Matters Sues To Defend the First Amendment. - Reason Magazine - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- Punishing Universities for Their Viewpoints Violates the First Amendment - Cato Institute - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- Palestinian Student Sues Michigan School Over Teachers Reaction to Her Refusal To Stand for Pledge - First Amendment Watch - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- CDT and EFF Urge Court to Carefully Consider Users First Amendment Rights in Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. - - Center for Democracy and... - June 24th, 2025 [June 24th, 2025]
- University of Oregon ordered to cover legal fees after settling First Amendment lawsuit - Campus Reform - June 24th, 2025 [June 24th, 2025]
- City attorney cites First Amendment rights in allowing rally; Third Street to open soon - Northern Wyoming News - June 20th, 2025 [June 20th, 2025]
- Guest column: 1,000 gathered in Oak Ridge to defend First Amendment - Oak Ridger - June 20th, 2025 [June 20th, 2025]
- Fighting Antisemitism Should Not Come at the Expense of the First Amendment - Reason Magazine - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- How Hawley, Marshall choose Trump over the First Amendment | Opinion - Kansas City Star - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- FARRAND: Saturday was a day we exercised three of our First Amendment rights - thenewsherald.com - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- The State of the First Amendment in the University of North Carolina System - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- The First Amendment is Again in Colorados Crosshairs - The Federalist Society - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- The Military Parade and Protections of the First Amendment - Just Security - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Court ruling clarifies limits of NCs First Amendment protection - Carolina Journal - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Letter to the Editor - Campbell County Democrats Cherish First Amendment Rights - The Mountain Press - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Editorial: Lets remember the peaceably part of First Amendment - Everett Herald - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- PETA Sues NIH, NIMH in Groundbreaking First Amendment Lawsuit - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- First Amendment expert explains the right to protest amid 'No Kings' movement - CBS News - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- ACLU of Nevada shares guidelines for protesters to safeguard their First Amendment rights - KSNV - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Las Vegas ICE protests: First Amendment right or breaking the law? - KLAS 8 News Now - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Rights afforded to protestors by the First Amendment, and what it does not give you the right to do - Action News Now - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- What can and can't you do with your First Amendment right of free speech? - KMPH - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- The First Amendment Is the backbone of democracy - Herald-Banner - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- First Amendment thoughts ahead of weekend protests | Whales Tales - Auburn Reporter - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Mass. AFL-CIO president says Trump administration is 'ripping up' the First Amendment - WBUR - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- No First Amendment Violation in Excluding Associated Press from "the Room Where It Happens" - Reason Magazine - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- Contra the Trump FTC, Boycotts Are Protected by the First Amendment - RealClearMarkets - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- Letter to the editor: Thanks to EPD for respecting my First Amendment rights on Palestine and Israel - Evanston RoundTable - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- Texas Harassment Conviction for Sending 34 Messages Over 15 Weeks to Ex-Therapist Violates First Amendment - Reason Magazine - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- Opinion | This Trump Executive Order Is Bad for Human Rights and the First Amendment - The New York Times - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- Contra the FTC, Boycotts Protected by First Amendment - RealClearMarkets - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- PBS sues Trump administration over funding cuts, alleging they violate First Amendment - CBS News - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- British Attacks on Free Speech Prove the Value of the First Amendment - Reason Magazine - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- Students Protesting the Genocide in Gaza Are Losing Their First Amendment Rights - splinter.com - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- PBS sues Trump administration, says executive order cutting federal funding violates First Amendment - Fox News - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- PBS sues Trump over funding cuts to public media and alleges First Amendment violation - Business Insider - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- Trump Lawyers Claim 60 Minutes Harris Interview Caused Him Mental Anguish, Argue That the First Amendment Is No Shield to News Distortion in Motion to... - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- Trumps executive orders: Due process, breathtaking sweeps, and the evils of intentional vagueness First Amendment News 472 - FIRE | Foundation for... - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- Free speech is the rule: Alito wants more First Amendment protections for students after middle schooler is punished for wearing There Are Only Two... - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- Judge Denies Artificial Intelligence Chatbot First Amendment Protections in Lawsuit - FindLaw - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- NPR sues over Trump order cutting off its funding, citing First Amendment - Duncan Banner - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- South Bend Stops YouTubers Bid to Revive First Amendment Claim - Bloomberg Law News - May 17th, 2025 [May 17th, 2025]
- Trump Administration Likely Violated American Bar Association's First Amendment Rights - Reason Magazine - May 15th, 2025 [May 15th, 2025]
- Perkins Coie Litigation Team Secures First Amendment Federal Court Win for DEF CON - Perkins Coie - May 15th, 2025 [May 15th, 2025]
- How swiftly power can be weaponized against dissenting voicesincluding the free and open press as protected by the First Amendment - Northeast Valley... - May 15th, 2025 [May 15th, 2025]
- NYUs First Amendment Watch Launches Trump 2.0: Executive Power and the First Amendment - NYU - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- CCIA Files Amicus Brief Defending the First Amendment Rights of Email Service Providers - CCIA - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Zick on executive orders and official orthodoxies First Amendment News 469 - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Why Journalists Must Band Together to Defend the First Amendment - PEN America - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Youngkin vetoes Confederate tax break roll back, but First Amendment scholar says that might be best - WHRO - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Baxter County facing $102,757 payment after losing eight-year First Amendment lawsuit - Mountain Home Observer - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- DOJ to investigate this new Washington law for first amendment violations - KGW - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Judge orders Tufts scholar Rumeysa Ozturk released from ICE detention after serious First Amendment and due process questions - MSN - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- The First Amendment and the Trump Administration's Anti-DEI Executive Orders - Reason Magazine - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]