Wherein The Copia Institute, Engine, And Reddit Tell The DC Circuit That FOSTA Is Unconstitutional
from the chilling-speech-is-not-cool dept
Ever since SESTA was a gleam in the Senate’s eye, we’ve been warning about the harmful effects it stood to have on online speech. The law that was finally birthed, FOSTA, has lived up to its terrifying billing. So, last year, EFF and its partners brought a lawsuit on behalf of several plaintiffs – online speakers, platforms, or both – to challenge its constitutionality. Unfortunately, and strangely, the district court dismissed the Woodhull Freedom Foundation et al v. U.S. case for lack of standing. It reached this decision despite the chilling effects that had already been observed and thanks to a very narrow read of the law that found precision and clarity in FOSTA's language where in reality there is none. The plaintiffs then appealed, and last week I filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Copia Institute, Engine, and Reddit in support of the appeal.
The overarching point we made is that speech is chilled by fear. And FOSTA replaced the statutory protection platforms relied on to be able to confidently intermediate speech with the fear of it. Moreover, it didn't just cause platforms to have only a little bit of fear of only a little bit of legal risk: thanks to the vague and overbroad terms of the statutory language, it stoked fear of nearly unlimited scope. And not just a fear of civil liability but now also criminal liability and liability subject to the disparate statutory interpretations of every state authority.
We have often praised the statutory wisdom of Section 230 before it was modified by FOSTA. By going with an approach that was “all carrot, no stick,” Congress was able to conscript platforms into meeting the basic objectives it listed in the opening sections of the statute: get the most good content online, and the least bad. But FOSTA replaced these carrots with sticks, and left platforms, instead of incented to allow the most good speech and restrict the most bad, now afraid to do either.
As a result of this fear, platforms have become vastly less accommodating towards the speech they allow on their systems, which has led to the removal (if not outright prohibition) of plenty of good (and perfectly lawful) speech. They have also been deterred from fully policing their forums, which has led to more of the worst speech persisting online. Notably, nothing in FOSTA actually modified the stated objectives of Section 230 to get the most good and least bad expression online, yet what it did modify nevertheless made achieving either goal impossible.
And in a way that the Constitution does not allow. What we learned in Reno v. ACLU, where the Supreme Court found much of the non-Section 230 parts of Communications Decency Act unconstitutional, is that online speech is just as protected as offline speech. Congress does not get to pass laws affecting speech in ways that don’t meet the exacting standards the First Amendment requires. In particular, if speech is impacted, it can only be by a law that is narrowly tailored to the problem it is trying to solve. Yet, as fellow amici wrote, speech is indeed being affected, deliberately, and, as we've seen from the harm that has accrued, by a law poorly tailored to the problem it is ostensibly intended to solve. As we explained in our brief, FOSTA has led to this result by creating a real and palpable fear of significant liability for platforms, and thus already driven them to make choices that have harmed online speakers and their speech.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cda 230, fosta, free speech, intermediary liability, standing, unconstitutional
Companies: copia institute, engine, reddit
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Kraft arrest shows that many sex-industry workers are trafficked from other countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False
No, the Kraft arrest does not show that there are "many" trafficked sex workers. But thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kraft got arrested, dood? What'd they do? Actually poison someone with their mac & cheese?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually there is no evidence of trafficking in the Kraft case whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"the district court dismissed"
But when plaintiffs against Twitter and such fail to be able to state exactly their grievance in difficult area, Techdirt makes much of it.
Now, since the above is an example of your writing and likely same as what presented to court: I read every word and found out that your grievance is: "but FOSTA!"
You state no specific harm to no individuals, just FUD.
U sure put the CORN in "Cornucopia".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remember when you promised to leave
Why you still here bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "the district court dismissed"
You apparently are allergic to investigating links in articles. Two other articles linked to in the article above:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190202/07253441511/new-study-says-removal-craigslist-erot ic-services-pages-may-be-linked-to-increase-murdered-females.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles /20181019/18011840879/another-report-shows-that-fosta-increased-not-decreased-sex-trafficking-where- is-outrage.shtml
But I expect you will denounce these as well, despite these also including links to things. Have a nice day, Mr. Winner. Enjoy your flag collection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "the district court dismissed"
Then obviously you didn't because their grievance is not "but FOSTA!" and nowhere do they state that and in fact state precisely and specifically what their grievances are.
Again, then you didn't actually read the article, and very obviously didn't follow the links to those instances of harm to individuals.
You sure put the "ham" in Hammond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every government backdrop has adopted the practice of flinging crap against the wall to see what sticks. This is totally irreverent of their sworn duty to uphold the US Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Added the brief
Oops. Just realized we didn't link to or embed the actual brief when this went up. Now we have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: narrowly tailored to the problem it is trying to solve
Problem: People can speak their minds. Solution: All speech is illegal. There - narrowly defined.
Actually I don't get the "narrowly defined" phrase. If the problem is broad then the solution can be broadly implemented and still be narrowly defined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two words: “hate speech”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They sure seem to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: narrowly tailored to the problem it is trying to solve
Narrowly tailored is a metaphor to something few people have experience with - tailoring. A narrowly tailored outfit is an outfit that is custom trimmed to provide a tight fit on a specific person, with little excess fabric.
A narrowly tailored law is one designed to affect the issue at hand while impacting as little as possible outside the main goal. Note that we are talking about crafting the law in a narrow fashion, not just in defining the issue. No where in the article is Narrowly defined refrenced.
In your example, the problem you solve is a broad issue. That is an problem because it will fail the hurdle of being a compelling government interest. We narrowly define the issue to help deal with 1st amendment concerns. That is part of narrow tailoring.
The other side is is that how we deal with it should put the smallest burden on those affected. Rather than all speech is illegal, to resolve the concern of people speaking their mind, you would implement a list of opinions/thoughts that are wrongspeech. Or possibly a list of opinions/topics that are rightspeech. That is a narrowly tailored concept to bar people speaking their minds, depending on the goal.
The broader the issue is defined, the broader the solution, the greater likelihood of chilling legal speech. The standards in the US require narrow tailoring, meaning crafting the definitions and the solutions to only accomplish the goal of the law. Its not strictly about the defnitions or the implementations, its about the impacts the law has on other speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]