In December, federal district court Judge Robert Pitman ruled against HB 20, Texas' sweeping new social media law that bars social media firms from engaging in almost any moderation of the content that can appear on their sites. Not only are they forbidden to completely exclude content they disapprove of; they are also not allowed to treat it differently on the site (such as by flagging it as possibly unreliable "misinformation" or reducing its prominence relative to other speech on the same platform).
Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling imposing a stay on the injunction against enforcement of the law issued by the trial court. The Fifth Circuit ruling is purely procedural, and is not accompanied by any opinion explaining the court's reasoning. So it's hard to say whether the stay is based on purely technical procedural considerations, or signals that the majority believes the law is actually constitutional.
On Friday, the tech firms challenging the law asked the Supreme Court to lift the Fifth Circuit's stay, in a brief drafted by a virtual Who's Who of prominent conservative appellate lawyers, including "super-lawyer" Paul Clement (former Bush administration Solicitor General), and former Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller.
I will not try to assess the purely procedural issues involved in the fight over the stay. But I completely agree with the brief's discussion of the substantive free speech question. HB 20 is blatantly unconstitutional because it compels speech, forbids the exercise of editorial discretion by social media firms, and is meant to target firms the Texas state government believes are hostile to "conservative" speech specifically.
HB 20 is an extreme version of proposals to treat social media firms as "common carriers" who have a legal duty to accept all or virtually all would-be customers. I criticized such proposals in detail here. Most of the points I make are relevant to the present case:
Let's start with first principles. Eugene Volokh asks "Whose rules should govern how Americans speak with other Americans?"..
Th[e] answer is that each American should be able to decide for himself, with extremely rare exceptions. But each person should also be able to decide what kinds of speech are permitted on their property. And that applies to media corporations no less than individuals. Thus, I should be able to advocate virtually any viewpoint I want. But Fox News and the New York Times should be equally free to refuse to broadcast or publish my views.
Both the right to free expression and the right to refuse a platform to speech you disapprove of are vital elements of freedom of speech. If Fox were forced to broadcast left-wing views they object to and the Times had to give space to right-wing ones its editors would prefer to avoid, it would be an obvious violation of their rights. Moreover, in the long run, such policies would actually reduce the quantity and quality of expression overall, as people would be less likely to establish TV stations and newspapers in the first place, if the cost of doing so was being forced to give a platform to your adversaries' views.
Thus, there should be a very strong presumption against forcing people to provide platforms for views they object to. Can proposals for common carrier regulation of social media overcome that objection? The answer should be a firm "no."
The standard rationale for common carrier regulation is that the the firms in question have some kind of monopoly power.
The reality is very much otherwise. Recent survey data compiled by the Pew Research Foundation finds that many more Americans get news by means other than social media than use the latter. For example, 68% of Americans indicated they regularly get news from media websites and apps, 68% from television, and only 53% from social media sites. Among the overwhelming majority (about 96% of the total sample) who use more than one type of media to get news, 35% preferred TV, 26% preferred news websites and apps, and only 11% said they preferred social media. The same study also found that, on average, Americans trust news from social media sources less than that from television and news websites.
What is true of news is also true of opinion and commentary about political and social issues in the news..
To the extent we are specifically concerned with access for conservative viewpoints, there are large right of center players in both TV media and online news and opinion. These include such major outlets as Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Washington Times, the New York Post, and others.
In sum, social media sites have nothing approaching a monopoly over the market for political information generally, or even over its distribution online.
One measure of Big Tech social media's inability to control political discourse is their utter failure to prevent the rise of widespread attacks on Big Tech itself! Real monopolists worthy of the name should be able to at least suppress speech that directly threatens their own interests.
Moreover, as I explained in a January [2021] op ed in USA Today (itself one of the many alternatives to social media!), the big social media sites don't even command a true monopoly over social media, narrowly defined. Rival sites with different (and often much looser) moderation rules can and do compete with them.. If they aren't as popular as Facebook and Twitter, it's not because of lack of competition, but because fewer consumers like them. Facebook and Twitter themselves challenged previous, supposedly dominant incumbents. If they annoy enough consumers, or if someone develops a more appealing competing platform, today's supposedly unassailable "giants" will suffer the same fate..
Other rationales for imposing common carrier rules on social media firms are even weaker than the monopoly theory.. [this part of my piece critiques analogies between social media and phone lines and mail delivery services].
The potential imminent takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk - who promises to greatly reduce content moderation - is a further sign that the market is fully capable of generating competition for platforms with restrictive moderation of policies.
I also explained why, if courts accept the HB 20 or "common carrier" approach to regulating social media, it would set a dangerous precedent for government control over other media:
In addition to banning content moderation rules that many consumers like, common carrier restrictions also create serious slippery slope risks. If the monopoly rationale for imposing common carrier rules on social media platforms is accepted, it could just as easily justify the imposition of similar requirements on many types of traditional media.
Even if Twitter and Facebook don't actually monopolize the market for political information, it's certainly true they reach various potential audiences that are difficult or impossible to reach in other ways. But, if that justifies forcing them to abjure restrictions on content, the same theory would rationalize imposing the same requirements on other types of media. Fox News, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and a variety of other major broadcast and print media outlets also reach large audiences that can't always be easily reached in other ways. By that rationale, they too can be forced to be common carriers!
Perhaps the problem is not that social media giants monopolize any audience in some economic sense, but that they have too much influence over political discourse relative to some egalitarian baseline. Why should Mark Zuckerberg's views have any more clout than those of the average American? But we can make exactly the same argument for the owners and editors of Fox News, the New York Times, and any other outlet with a large audience. They too have vastly more influence over public discourse than the average American does. And it's not clear that they are any more worthy of their influence than Zuckerberg is.
Giving government a free hand to impose common carrier restrictions on any website or media outlet that "monopolizes" a particular audience or otherwise has "too much" influence is a power that can and will be abused. Call it "common carrier creep!"
The party in power will have obvious incentives to use it to neuter media that oppose them. Even if conservatives are comfortable with giving such discretion to GOP politicians, are they equally at ease with giving it to Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren? How about the bureaucrats Democratic presidents are likely to appoint to federal regulatory agencies tasked with implementing such common carrier regulations (and deciding which firms should be subject to them)?
Liberal advocates of social media regulation (of whom Warren is a prominent example) should ask themselves whether they would be willing to entrust such regulatory authority to the likes of Donald Trump or Josh Hawley. Given the chance, those guys would be happy to make social media great again - under their definition of greatness, of course.
More:
Why the Texas Social Media Law is a Menace to Freedom of Speech - Reason
- Here's what the law says about protesting on Texas college campuses - The Texas Tribune - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- The awkward truth about sex and free speech | Nina Welsch - The Critic - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- Get the Facts: How far does the First Amendment go? - WDSU New Orleans - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- NC school adopts free speech policy after firing professor who opposed critical theory - ADF Media - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- Biden's Government Takeover of the Internet Threatens Freedom of Speech - RealClearPolicy - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- Professor tackles subject of limiting freedom to express - Yahoo News Canada - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- Louisiana Tech earns top rating for free speech - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- Freedom of speech 'under assault' at Palestine protests in US universities - The National - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- Is TikTok Protected Speech Or Threat To Americans? Wyoming Legislators Split - Cowboy State Daily - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- Free Speech Aids Racial Justice. Activists Must Defend It. | Opinion - Harvard Crimson - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- Progressives Are Ditching Free Speech To Fight 'Disinformation' - Reason - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- There is a way out of cancel culture but it's not free speech - Times Higher Education - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- Editor's take: Limiting hate speech not a First Amendment violation - The Pajaronian - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- Israel's Proposed 'Terror Incitement' Law Is a Dangerous Threat to Freedom of Speech - Haaretz Editorial - Haaretz - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- Colorado bill tasking attorney general to study online 'misinformation' sparks First Amendment debate - coloradopolitics.com - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- 10 Worst Censors: 2024 | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- Harvard University's Lifetime Censorship Award: Impact on Freedom of Speech and Journalism - Medriva - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- Reading is freedom of speech, says 'ABCs of Book Banning' director - KCRW's This...Is Interesting - Podcast en iVoox - iVoox - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- Freedom of speech or lack of civility? Resident perturbed by others berating Killeen City Council and mayor - The Killeen Daily Herald - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Harvard Students Should Know Freedom Of Speech Is Not Freedom From Consequences - The Federalist - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- FIRE launches six-figure free speech campaign with primetime ... - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- UGS responds to free speech concerns on campus - The Stanford Daily - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- UCI Year of Free Speech kicks off with virtual event - UCI News - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Book review: A Constitution To Keep: Sedition And Free Speech In ... - Maktoob media - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Protestors, supporters gather on HUB lawn for Riley Gaines' Free ... - The Daily Collegian - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Editorial: When is free speech not free on college campuses? - TribLIVE - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- How do you handle free speech issues in higher education, popular discourse? - University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- Free speech protections are under threat in Texas Legislature - The Dallas Morning News - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- Should Irish universities introduce mandatory free speech classes? - The Irish Times - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- Florida House approves bill that would change rules around campus ... - WUFT - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- Free speech bill 'could protect extreme views' - Times Higher Education - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- Ronald Collins and Ronnie Marmo: Comedy clubs are free speech ... - Independent Record - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- A notable foundation for freedom of speech - Newsday - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- Troy, Alabama A&M receive poor 'red' rating from campus free ... - 1819 News - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- Freedom of Speech Pros and Cons: What Both Sides Think - March 8th, 2023 [March 8th, 2023]
- What is the freedom of speech? - Alliance Defending Freedom - January 25th, 2023 [January 25th, 2023]
- freedom of speech | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute - January 25th, 2023 [January 25th, 2023]
- First Amendment: Freedom of Speech | LII / Legal Information Institute - January 25th, 2023 [January 25th, 2023]
- Freedom of speech online: What are the Florida and Texas laws the US top court could hear a challenge to - The Indian Express - January 25th, 2023 [January 25th, 2023]
- Elon Musk says new Twitter policy is freedom of speech & not freedom ... - January 4th, 2023 [January 4th, 2023]
- CNN Calls Freedom of Speech 'Nonsense' in Moronic Rant - December 12th, 2022 [December 12th, 2022]
- Ex-CNN journo and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa explains why ... - December 12th, 2022 [December 12th, 2022]
- Hate speech - Wikipedia - November 27th, 2022 [November 27th, 2022]
- Freedom of Speech and Expression | CSCE - November 25th, 2022 [November 25th, 2022]
- Why Is Freedom Of Speech Important? The Relevance Explained - November 25th, 2022 [November 25th, 2022]
- 'Freedom Of Speech, But Not Freedom Of Reach': Musk Reinstates Kathy Griffin And Jordan Peterson Amid New Policy But Not Trump Yet - Forbes - November 21st, 2022 [November 21st, 2022]
- Freedom of speech is in jeopardy - The Ridgefield Press - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- The Alex Jones trap: How 'owning the libs' can turn into a self-own for conservatives - Washington Examiner - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- Just released: The 2022-2023 College Free Speech Rankings - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - September 7th, 2022 [September 7th, 2022]
- Russian Court's Ban of Newspaper Novaya Gazeta is a Punch in the Face of Freedom of Speech - Novinite.com - September 7th, 2022 [September 7th, 2022]
- Bangladeshi Editor Rifat Munim Supports Salman Rushdie's Freedom Of Speech: 'Why React To The Book Or The Cartoons In This Childish Way? Why Show... - September 7th, 2022 [September 7th, 2022]
- Crikey! The exclamation of Free Speech - RadioInfo Australia - Radioinfo - September 7th, 2022 [September 7th, 2022]
- Batley row 'shows how extremists are using blasphemy to attack free speech' - The Telegraph - September 7th, 2022 [September 7th, 2022]
- Expansion of Title IX Tramples First Amendment - California Globe - September 7th, 2022 [September 7th, 2022]
- BRACK: S.C. Senate is poking free speech bear on abortion Statehouse Report - Statehouse Report - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Will AG Ken Paxton join the fight for freedom of speech? - Wilson County News - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- The UK Government Wants to Scrap the Human Rights Act. Here's What to Know. - Global Citizen - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Cancel culture empowers the powerful at everyone elses expense - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Repressive executive order from UNC Chapel Hill student government cuts off funding for pro-life individuals, causes - Foundation for Individual... - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Editorial: Alex Jones' lessons on the First and Sixth Amendments - CT Insider - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- NEW for 7/29: How abortion now works in S.C., and more Statehouse Report - Statehouse Report - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Why Does The State Panic Over Free Speech? - The Friday Times - July 27th, 2022 [July 27th, 2022]
- How to Fix the Bias Against Free Speech on Campus - The Atlantic - July 17th, 2022 [July 17th, 2022]
- Universities are in denial over the free-speech crisis - Spiked - July 17th, 2022 [July 17th, 2022]
- Who Really Benefits From the First Amendment? - Tablet Magazine - July 17th, 2022 [July 17th, 2022]
- Legal Eagle: Is free speech abused to flout others rights? - Free Press Journal - July 17th, 2022 [July 17th, 2022]
- Free speech 'stifled' as universities cancel record number of speakers - The Telegraph - July 17th, 2022 [July 17th, 2022]
- The Online Safety Bill could lead to the biggest curtailment of free speech in modern history - The Telegraph - July 17th, 2022 [July 17th, 2022]
- LAWSUIT: Professor sues University of Washington after admins punish him for 'inappropriate' opinion - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - July 17th, 2022 [July 17th, 2022]
- VICTORY: Art institute reverses expulsion for student who retweeted sexual art - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - July 17th, 2022 [July 17th, 2022]
- Twitter and Freedom of Speech | News, Sports, Jobs - The Mining Gazette - Daily Mining Gazette - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- Amber Heard, the ACLU, and the Future of Free Speech - Reason - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- In my view: Freedom of speech is important - Slough and Windsor Observer - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- New AGB Resource Prepares Higher Education Board Members to Balance Freedom of Speech with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - PR Web - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- 'What's the point inviting me on!' Piers Morgan and student erupt in free speech row - Express - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- Binance CEO says 'free speech is very hard to define' - Business Insider - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- The Deeper Significance of Justice Thomas's Second Amendment Opinion - The Epoch Times - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- Twitter and freedom of speech - Washington Times - June 22nd, 2022 [June 22nd, 2022]
- Bill of Rights to strengthen freedom of speech and curb bogus human rights claims - GOV.UK - June 22nd, 2022 [June 22nd, 2022]
- Twitter and the freedom of speech | Opinion | journal-spectator.com - Wharton Journal Spectator - June 22nd, 2022 [June 22nd, 2022]