Congress Escalates Pressure on Tech Giants to Censor More, - Threatening the First Amendment Posted: Feb 22nd, 2021 - 7:24 am
In their zeal for control over online speech, House Democrats are getting closer and closer to the constitutional line, if they have not already crossed it.
For the third time in less than five months, the U.S. Congress has summoned the CEOs of social media companies to appear before them, with the explicit intent to pressure and coerce them to censor more content from their platforms. On March 25, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will interrogate Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, Facebooks’s Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Sundar Pichai at a hearing which the Committee announced will focus “on misinformation and disinformation plaguing online platforms.”
The Committee’s Chair, Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), and the two Chairs of the Subcommittees holding the hearings, Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), said in a joint statement that the impetus was “falsehoods about the COVID-19 vaccine” and “debunked claims of election fraud.” They argued that “these online platforms have allowed misinformation to spread, intensifying national crises with real-life, grim consequences for public health and safety,” adding: “This hearing will continue the Committee’s work of holding online platforms accountable for the growing rise of misinformation and disinformation.”
Subscribe now
House Democrats have made no secret of their ultimate goal with this hearing: to exert control over the content on these online platforms. “Industry self-regulation has failed,” they said, and therefore “we must begin the work of changing incentives driving social media companies to allow and even promote misinformation and disinformation.” In other words, they intend to use state power to influence and coerce these companies to change which content they do and do not allow to be published.
I’ve written and spoken at length over the past several years about the dangers of vesting the power in the state, or in tech monopolies, to determine what is true and false, or what constitutes permissible opinion and what does not. I will not repeat those points here.
Instead, the key point raised by these last threats from House Democrats is an often-overlooked one: while the First Amendment does not apply to voluntary choices made by a private company about what speech to allow or prohibit, it does bar the U.S. Government from coercing or threatening such companies to censor. In other words, Congress violates the First Amendment when it attempts to require private companies to impose viewpoint-based speech restrictions which the government itself would be constitutionally barred from imposing.
It may not be easy to draw where the precise line is — to know exactly when Congress has crossed from merely expressing concerns into unconstitutional regulation of speech through its influence over private companies — but there is no question that the First Amendment does not permit indirect censorship through regulatory and legal threats.
Ben Wizner, Director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told me that while a constitutional analysis depends on a variety of factors including the types of threats issued and how much coercion is amassed, it is well-established that the First Amendment governs attempts by Congress to pressure private companies to censor:
For the same reasons that the Constitution prohibits the government from dictating what information we can see and read (outside narrow limits), it also prohibits the government from using its immense authority to coerce private actors into censoring on its behalf.
In a January Wall Street Journal op-ed, tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and Yale Law School’s constitutional scholar Jed Rubenfeld warned that Congress is rapidly approaching this constitutional boundary if it has not already transgressed it. “Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats,” the duo wrote, “Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.”
That article compiled just a small sample of case law making clear that efforts to coerce private actors to censor speech implicate core First Amendment free speech guarantees. In Norwood v. Harrison (1973), for instance, the Court declared it “axiomatic” — a basic legal principle — that Congress “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” They noted: “For more than half a century courts have held that governmental threats can turn private conduct into state action.”
read more at link
LINK/URL: Congress Escalates Pressure on Tech Giants to Censor More,
Post A Reply Reply By Email Options
Complete Discussion Below: (  marks the location of current message within thread)
- Global issue with fluency. Trouble uploading jobs, support knows (nm)
- House Democrats’ Attempt to Pressure TV Carriers Could Trigger Lawsuit: Dershowitz
- Faber Transcription
- Precision
- April Fools Day is canceled this year.
- was/were Doc says - A host of blood tests were suggested.
- Snapchat Is A Transgender Propaganda And Grooming Machine
- China Lists Four ‘Red Lines’ to Biden, Demands US Lift Tariffs and
- Got my second Covid shot
- Trump Program Saved $160 Billion, Cut Regulatory Costs 90% - Biden Killed It
- Amazon Prime Stops Streaming Clarence Thomas Documentary During
- Florida woman robs bank, arrested after police catch her fleeing
- G.I. Joe To Be Replaced With Genderless G.I. Pat
- WOW - the Med-Scribe ad has so many errors
- Weekend Fluency Experience Needed for 3rd Shift...Double Incentive Position!!
- Night Owls Wanted - MLS IC positions
- Rep. Linda Sánchez just introduced the most radical piece of
- Flying Syringes – Bill Gates Wants To Release Genetically Modified
- US launches airstrike against Iranian-backed forces
- Leaked Emails Confirm UN Gave Names of Dissidents to CCP
- Democrats Accept 2 of 286 Amendments Sought by Republicans for $1.9 Trillion COVID-19 Stimulus Bill
- Looking for English legal transcriptionists
- Pelosi caught sending eye watering amount to help
- One Journalist Brilliantly Calls Out Biden Admin For Their LIES After
- Biden & Equity. Does he REALLY Know the Definition?
- Lawmakers Demand Investigation Of NIH ‘Secretively’ Funneling US
- Students shocked to hear that Biden, not Trump, called Uyghur
- Acute Care MLS - Part-time Employee (NO 1099!) (NO VDI!)
- Don't ya just love how it was "kids in cages" while they're doin
- Levine is one sicko. Anyone in Congress who confirms her needs to be replaced
- Biden’s HHS Nominee Wants Taxpayer-Funded Medicaid for Illegal
- Med-TREX, Ltd. Any info?
- Dictator Biden policies so bad (no shock) even CNN now
- The 1918 Spanish Flu had 4 waves-The Last Was 18 Months After The Third
- House Democrats, Targeting Right-Wing Cable Outlets, Are Assaulting
- Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick’s Mother: ‘He Wasn’t Hit on the
- Pathology VR editor
- How an Influential Medical Journal Laundered Progressivism as
- Former Clinton adviser Naomi Wolf tells Tucker Carlson she fears
- Another press conference by Biden about COVID-19.
- Oink, oink. They'll never learn, with they?
- Transcription Positions Available
- Approximately 100,000+- COVID deaths since Schmoe took office.
- Coca Cola Confirms Training Employees ‘Try To Be Less White’
- Biden Announces Ambitious Goal Of $100 Per Gallon Gas By End
- Biden team colluded with Iran to foil Trump diplomacy
- Congress Escalates Pressure on Tech Giants to Censor More,
- Black police officer fired after being accused of sharing info
- Jewish groups demand Michael Che apologize for his 'anti-Semitic'
- Inside Wikipedia's leftist bias: socialism pages whitewashed,
|
