维维克·拉马斯瓦米(Vivek Ramaswamy) & 杰德·鲁本菲尔德: Twitter和Facebook的审查是违反言论自由的

维维克·拉马斯瓦米(Vivek Ramaswamy) & 杰德·鲁本菲尔德: Twitter和Facebook的审查是违反言论自由的

脸书推特 banned President Trump and numerous supporters after last week’s disgraceful Capitol riot, and Google, Apple and 亚马孙 blocked Twitter alternative Parler — all based on claims ofincitement to violence” 和 “hate speech.

Silicon Valley titans cite their ever-changingterms of service,” but their selective enforcement suggests 政治 motives.

Conventional wisdom holds that technology companies are free to regulate content because they are private, and the First Amendment protects only against government censorship. That view is wrong: 谷歌, Facebook and Twitter should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines.

塔克·卡尔森: TWITTER BRAZENLY DEPLATFORMS CONSERVATIVES, THEN REMINDS UGANDA THAT CENSORSHIP IS BAD

Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.

来自Opinion的更多内容

It isaxiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the governmentmay not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.

That’s what Congress did by enacting Section 230 的 1996 Communications Decency Act, which not only permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech but immunizes them from liability if they do so.

The justices have long held that the provision of such immunity can turn private action into state action. In Railway Employees’ Department v. 汉森 (1956), they found state action in private union-employer closed-shop agreements — which force all employees to join the union — because Congress had passed a statute immunizing such agreements from liability under state law.

In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association (1989), the court again found state action in private-party conduct — drug tests for company employees — because federal regulations immunized railroads from liability if they conducted those tests.

单击此处注册我们的意见通讯

In both cases, as with Section 230, the federal government didn’t mandate anything; it merely preempted state law, protecting certain private parties from lawsuits if they engaged in the conduct Congress was promoting.

部分 230 is the carrot, and there’s also a stick: Congressional Democrats have repeatedly made explicit threats to social media giants if they failed to censor speech those lawmakers disfavored.

在四月份 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they hadbetterrestrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation:

单击此处获取FOX新闻应用程序

We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.

杰德·鲁本菲尔德, a constitutional scholar, has advised parties who are litigating or may litigate against Google and Facebook.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS COLUMN IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM VIVEK RAMASWAMY

评论被关闭.