{"id":14534,"date":"2024-01-24T13:46:23","date_gmt":"2024-01-24T13:46:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/2024\/01\/24\/gop-senator-urges-scotus-to-rein-in-big-techs-content-censorship-that-defies-logic\/"},"modified":"2024-01-24T13:46:23","modified_gmt":"2024-01-24T13:46:23","slug":"gop-senator-urges-scotus-to-rein-in-big-techs-content-censorship-that-defies-logic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/2024\/01\/24\/gop-senator-urges-scotus-to-rein-in-big-techs-content-censorship-that-defies-logic\/","title":{"rendered":"GOP senator urges SCOTUS to rein in Big Tech\u2019s content censorship that defies \u2018logic\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
Join Fox News for access to this content<\/div>\n
Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos and more with your free account!<\/div>\n
Please enter a valid email address.<\/span><\/div>\n
By entering your email, you are agreeing to Fox News Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

FIRST ON FOX \u2014<\/strong> Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., is urging the Supreme Court not to buy into arguments from Big Tech platforms that they should have First Amendment freedom to censor user content while simultaneously demanding legal protection from content posted on their platforms.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a set of cases that question whether state laws that limit Big Tech companies\u2019 ability to moderate content on their platforms curbs the companies\u2019 First Amendment liberties.<\/p>\n

The Missouri Republican filed a brief in the cases Tuesday, arguing the platforms want to keep liability protections granted by Congress for content on their sites, while simultaneously asking for unfettered ability to censor content, citing their First Amendment liberties.<\/p>\n

The court \u2018should not bless the platforms\u2019 contradictory positions, much less constitutionalize them,\u2019 Hawley argued, adding that \u2018doing so would effectively immunize the platforms from both\u00a0civil liability in tort and regulatory oversight by legislators.\u2019<\/p>\n

The cases before the high court originate from separate laws that passed in Florida and Texas that would require large\u00a0Big Tech companies like X, formerly Twitter,\u00a0and Facebook to host third-party communications but prevent those businesses from blocking or removing users\u2019 posts based on political viewpoints.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A federal appeals court had ruled for the tech industry in the Florida case, saying, as private entities, those companies were \u2018engaged in constitutionally protected expressive activity when they moderate and curate the content that they disseminate on their platforms.\u2019\u00a0But the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of a similar law in Texas, creating a circuit split on the issue ripe for the nine justices to take up.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Hawley in his brief explains that, in the 1990s, following the advent of the internet, Congress and the courts needed to square the longstanding principle in American publication law that \u2018individuals who play an active role in disseminating others\u2019 speech are liable for any unlawful harm that speech causes.\u2019<\/p>\n

The result was Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which broadly insulates platforms from civil liability for hosting user-generated content.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u2018At the time, Section 230 was justified on the theory that platforms could not exercise publisher-level control over the speech generated by third-party users,\u2019 Hawley said.<\/p>\n

\u2018Despite decades arguing for this position, today the tech platforms take precisely the opposite line. They claim that their content hosting and curation decisions are\u00a0in fact expressive \u2014 expressive enough that they enjoy First Amendment protection,\u2019 the lawmaker\u2019s brief states.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Hawley charged that the social media giants \u2018always have some excuse as to why the law doesn\u2019t apply to them.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u2018It doesn\u2019t matter that they\u2019ve made exactly opposing arguments in court. They don\u2019t care about that. All they care about is preserving their ability to control speech and censor at will,\u2019 he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The platforms told the Supreme Court state laws in Florida and Texas \u2018openly abridge\u2019 their \u2018First Amendment right to exercise editorial judgment over what content to disseminate on their websites via requirements that are speaker-based, content-based, and viewpoint-discriminatory.\u2019<\/p>\n

But Hawley says the platforms\u2019 argument \u2018completely undercuts the logic of Section 230,\u2019 which the platforms have long sought to keep in place despite bipartisan pressure to repeal all if not some of that statute.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u2018Extending an historical blanket immunity to this sector will have real-world consequences. To invoke a frighteningly realistic hypothetical, nothing could stop a web platform\u2019s algorithm from promoting content designed to addict and harm young people,\u2019 Hawley wrote in his brief.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u2018Take, as an example, content promoting eating disorders (a shockingly common phenomenon on modern social media). Companies could choose to affirmatively undermine the mental and physical health of America\u2019s youth, while enjoying the protections of Section 230. While teens starved and parents looked on, no private action would lie. And then, when the government stepped in, the platforms could simply invoke their First Amendment immunity. Promoting eating disorders could be, after all, an editorial choice,\u2019 he argues.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u2018Nestled in a comfortable fissure between legal doctrines, the platforms could look on as their algorithms \u2014 or affirmative curation decisions \u2014 devastated a generation,\u2019 he added.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The court will hear arguments in the cases, Moody v. NetChoice, LLC\u00a0and NetChoice LLC v. Paxton Feb. 26.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Join Fox News for access to this content Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos and more with your free account! Please enter a valid email address. By entering your email, you are agreeing to Fox News Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":14535,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-14534","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-politics"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14534","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14534"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14534\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14535"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14534"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14534"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14534"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}