Wisconsin Senator's Social Media Bill Aims To Save The First Amendment By Violating The First Amendment
from the [headed-to-the-ER-to-get-my-third-degree-stupid-burns-treated] dept
Grandstands and bandwagons: that's what's headed to Social Media Town. Professional victims -- far too many of them earning public money -- have produced a steady stream of stupid legislation targeting social media platforms for supposedly "censoring" the kind of the content they really like: "conservative views." Convinced by failed-businessman-turned-failed-president Donald Trump (and his herd of Capitol Hill toadies) that social media has it in for anyone but the leftiest leftists, a bunch of legislators have hacked up "anti-censorship" bills that aim to protect free speech by trampling on free speech.
The latest (but surely not the last) legislator to grab his bandstand and board the bandwagon is Wisconsin state Senator Julian Bradley. Bradley seems convinced his low Twitter polling must be due to social media companies keeping him down.
“Big tech is silencing the things I say,” Bradley explained Monday morning. “They are silencing and shadow banning, they’re blocking any information that I am putting out.”
And he has a message for Big Social Media:
"Free expression is one of the most vital components of our democratic republic. We must ensure our citizens can engage in political speech unfiltered and uncensored by Big Tech. It's time for Facebook and Twitter to consistently and fairly enforce their own rules."
How does Bradley hope to protect free speech from the censorship private companies can't actually commit? By violating their free speech rights, of course. From the bill [PDF] Bradley says he's filing but actually has yet to file [as of July 14th, anyway]:
The bill prohibits a social media platform from using post prioritization (prioritizing certain content ahead of, below, or in a more or less prominent position than others in a newsfeed, feed, view, or search results) on content or material posted by or about a candidate for state or local office or an elected official who holds a state, local, or national office.
The bill also prohibits a social media platform from knowingly censoring, deplatforming (deleting or banning from the social media platform for more than 60 days), or shadow banning (limiting or eliminating the exposure of a user, or content posted by a user, to other users of the social media platform) a candidate for state or local office or an elected official who holds a state, local, or national office.
This compelled speech that favors only certain people is shoved into the bill alongside language that says social media companies must treat everyone equally.
Under the bill, a social media platform must publish the standards it uses for determining how to censor, deplatform, and shadow ban users on the platform. A social media platform must apply censorship, deplatforming, and shadow banning standards in a consistent manner among its users on the platform.
All social media patrons must be treated equally... except for politicians and would-be politicians, who will be statutorily more equal than others. Failure to carry compelled speech or apply rules "consistently" will potentially cost social media companies hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions per claim). And "consistency" will be defined literally on a case-by-case basis since the new law would create a private cause of action against qualifying social media platforms.
Bradley doesn't seem to know or care whether his proposal is constitutional. All he knows is he's pretty sure it's ok for the government to compel speech when courts have ruled government officials can't cut off citizens from interacting with them.
Bradley is quick to point-out that judges have ruled lawmakers and other elected officials cannot block or ban people from commenting on their posts, even if those comments are negative or ugly. The courts have ruled, essentially, that social media is the new public town hall and some online speech is protected.
Bradley is right... at least as far as getting the gist of recent court decisions. But he's wrong when he clarifies his own position:
Bradley said he is using this same logic to say that social media platforms shouldn't be able to ban elected officials, no matter the language they use.
Ah. Well then. Good luck using that "same logic" in court. This isn't junior high debate class, you rube. This is the Constitution. "This same logic" doesn't apply when there are two very clear and very distinct sets of rules that govern private companies and public servants. Public servants can't prevent the public from participating in their own governance. Private companies are free to pick and choose whose content they'll host. And social media services have cut elected officials a lot of slack over the years, keeping accounts alive that would have been shut down much earlier if platforms enforced rules consistently.
Bradley wants to create a carve-out for public officials in both the Constitution and social media platforms' terms of service. That's utter bullshit and shouldn't be tolerated by either his government cohorts or the people he's supposed to be representing.
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: 1st amendment, content moderation, julian bradley, section 230, social media, wisconsin
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not Compelled
Most platforms claim that the speech posted by its users is not the speech of the platform in order to avoid liability. Therefore social media corporations are not doing the speaking, and are not being compelled. Social media is not being compelled anymore than a paper company is being compelled if someone writes something with which they disagree on a piece of their paper. There is no first amendment right to censor others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Compelled
Interesting point...there's someone looking for your comment on GETTR doing the same thing....
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210709/17144347141/it-appears-that-jason-millers-gettr -is-speed-running-content-moderation-learning-curve-faster-than-parler.shtml#c3910
What say you? Care to comment about first amendment right with respect to GETTR? Seems like they're the same people who continually complain on one hand, then do the same thing on the other, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Compelled
They're also wondering what you think here too...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210713/09513247161/florida-man-governor-wastes-more-flori da-taxpayer-money-appealing-ruling-about-his-unconstitutional-social-media-law.shtml#c459
Seems like anytime one of your own either loses spectacularly, or makes you look like hypocritical morons, you disappear.
Care to enlighten us as to why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Compelled
Most platforms claim that the speech posted by its users is not the speech of the platform in order to avoid liability. Therefore social media corporations are not doing the speaking, and are not being compelled.
Koby, this is wrong (again). This has been explained to you repeatedly. The 1st Amendment ALSO bars the government from interfering with the right of association. Forcing someone to host speech they disagree with is compelled violation of the 1st Amendment's right of free association.
There is no first amendment right to censor others.
You're so wrong it's laughable.
Why do you hate the 1st Amendment? Why do you support the government takeover of websites? Koby, you're so anti-American it hurts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not Compelled
Koby isn’t wrong. Masnick, show us the part of the 1st Amendment about protecting the right to censor others. Here it is in its entirety. Show us the part. Go ahead. Thanks in advance.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“
Standing by for your answer….
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not Compelled
Huh, I didn't know Facebook had been nationalized. I'm assuming this was after Biden got into office?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not Compelled
What you call "censor" is just someone kicking the assholes out because they don't want to be associated with them, ie exercising their freedom of association thing.
That you fail to understand this is just because you are an stupid asshole that's screaming about how your rights are being violated while you are forcing your odious person upon others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Compelled
Social media is not being compelled anymore than a paper company is being compelled if someone writes something with which they disagree on a piece of their paper.
Do you think you'll be able to write on THEIR paper without purchasing it first, thus making it YOUR paper?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not Compelled
After you make the purchase, it's yours. And every time you click the Submit button, the speech is yours and the transaction is complete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not Compelled
And every time you click the Submit button, the speech is yours and the transaction is complete.
But the website (paper) that it's written on was never mine to begin with. So what exactly did I purchase that I would have a property interest in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's my corkboard now supermarket owner
Didn't you know, if someone allows use of their property the second you make use of it that property(or at least that part) becomes yours and the previous owner has no right to remove any changes or additions you might have made, therefore it is not and would not be in any way a violation of their rights for the government to step in and tell them they have to leave your stuff up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They may not be compelled into speaking, sure. But they’d be compelled into hosting speech they don’t want to host. Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let me answer for him, as we were talking about exactly that...you see, a website is like a piece of paper. He doesn't own it, but he thinks having a pen entitles him to use it, whether the owner of said paper likes it or not.
As such he believes that he has a fundamental right to use his pen whenever and wherever he wants, irrespective of whose paper he's writing on. And he asks, nay DEMANDS that if he can't use the paper, then someone must force the paper owner to let him use it.
Do I have it right, Koby?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“They may not be compelled into speaking…”
Exactly. So Techdirt needs to stop whining about ‘compelled speech’, which Cushing uses several times here.
(Masnick usually has Cushing on the mad-at-daddy anti-law enforcement beat…wonder what’s going on at Techdirt HQ.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Compelled
They're looking for you here too Bud!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210709/15172947139/exactly-right-youre-not-entitled-to-plat form-boomer.shtml#c28
This time it's the Washington Examiner, which I'm sure you would agree caters to you oppressed folks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smells like a certain Florida law
When I read the description this proposed law reminds me of that Florida bill that Techdirt recently wrote a lot about. Yes the one where the state appeals the ruling that its law was non-constitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a Wisconsinite...
Can we please add a theme park exception to this bill? I really would like more theme parks in my state, even if it is run by Google or Facebook!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As a Wisconsinite...
I mean there is that land they promised for the FoxxConn plant thats not doing anything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As a Wisconsinite...
I am looking forward to visiting Cheese Head Land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do I have the feeling that if I gave a damn and pulled up his Twitter feed it would be filled with all sorts of openminded loving... bwhahaahahahahahaha oh sorry even I couldn't pull that off.
He is a walking caricature of GQP talking points.
Only the GQP cares about you, the border must be sealed, poor people should be forced back to work for the economy...
No mention of vaccines, masks...
Its the liberals making everything bad, they won't let us cut business taxes which are holding them back...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"they’re blocking any information that I am putting out."
Nope, I checked.
His twitter feed is there, full of blaming liberals and immigrants for all the problems in the nation while he is on the side of those who can solve them despite having had control of the nation for a couple of years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At this time I would like to formally announce my candidacy for a state or local office. Any and or all of them that may apply now or in the future.
With that announcement made, I am now a candidate, obviously, meaning I can do whatever I want on social media. Forever, or they will be hearing from my lawyers and we'll all be laughing about this all the way to the bank.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the alternative, a random order where he might appear on the last page?
Proposals like that show no understanding of the basic problems of indexing and listing things, or a world view where the propose is the most important person in the world, and nobody else is of any importance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wisconsin is a state where democrats won 54% of the votes yet republicans, who are very much the minority, kept two thirds of the seats and moved immediately to gut the powers of the governor, the one seat they couldn't retain through gerrymandering. No Wisconsin republican has any right to pretend they're a champion of freedom and democracy, they're champions of selfish power grabs, nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
'Small government!... when anyone but us is in power.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
innoc first try because BLOCKED
they see me quein', they hatin'!
This known by mentions from minions and Maz that they see the queue filled -- but they don't ever let any of mine out, proving viewpoint discrimination!
I just have to hammer away until TD admin either okays or I find an unblocked Tor exit node...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: innoc first try because BLOCKED
AND I'm IN, see?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: innoc first try because BLOCKED
Yeah, we're all just marveling at the lengths you go to post, just so we can all flag it.
Just thought I'd tell you - it's not your viewpoint. It's you.
HTH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: innoc first try because BLOCKED
HOW do you KNOW unless see the queue, minion pretending to be AC?
And you're WRONG as usual!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: innoc first try because BLOCKED
I see the queue. And you're wrong. We have always let comments through, even those from ignorant fools and morons who disagree with us. The only reason YOUR comments don't get through is because you submit 100 of the exact same comment. So by the time we check the queue to see your ignorant foolish nonsense, you've already figured out some way to get your comment through anyway. And we don't want to have the entire comments flooded with 100 copies of you posting the same ignorant bullshit over and over again.
If you just had some modicum of self-control and patience, we'd let your stupid, ignorant, foolish, comments through. But you don't. So, you waste your time spamming, and we waste our time having to pick through a queue dominated by your nonsense.
Knock if off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: innoc first try because BLOCKED
HOW do you KNOW unless see the queue, minion pretending to be AC?
Are you lying when you complain about having to spam so many times to get a post through, Mr. Random Capitalization?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That or your unmedicated mental illness
"And you're WRONG as usual!"
Nah they aren't wrong.
You are.
In fact it's you inability to accept that fact, that most likely, continues to be the singe greatest thing that holds you back in life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That or your unmedicated mental illness
"In fact it's you inability to accept that fact, that most likely, continues to be the singe greatest thing that holds you back in life."
To be fair, him being a general moron unable to learn kindergarten-level logic probably contributes a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Naked hypocrisy strikes again
Take a little 'Everyone is equal, but some animals are more equal than others', mix in a dash of 'consequences are for other people' and throw in a heaping pile of 'my imaginary constitutional rights are more important than your actual constitutional rights!' and you've got one of the core 'conservative' pillars these days.
How very quickly the party of 'let the free market decide', 'small government' and 'personal responsibility' pivots into heavy regulations when the market decides that it doesn't care for them thanks to their words and actions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your assertions are utterly invalid.
Corporations aren't in The Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your assertions are utterly invalid.
You're correct in that they aren't directly mentioned, but...
The Supremes declared long ago that corporations are persons for the sake of applicable portions of the Constitution and laws derived therefrom. Hence, those assertions you deny are indeed applicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your assertions are utterly invalid.
"Corporations aren't in The Constitution."
Corporations = private property.
So yes, corporations are indeed in the constitution.
It's not a good look when a US right-winger tries to argue that the concept of private property isn't enshrined in the national charter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's ironic that you respect "free speech for companies"
Companies shouldn't have constitutional protections.
You shouldn't be able to violate "facebook's first amendment rights". It shouldn't have any.
That decision was almost as bad as citizen's united.
People have rights, companies don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's ironic that you respect "free speech for companies"
Companies shouldn't have constitutional protections.
Why not? That would be an absolute fucking disaster. Think of how often companies would be sued for absolutely garbage reasons.
That decision was almost as bad as citizen's united.
What decision? And what was "bad" about CU? What do you think CU was actually about?
People have rights, companies don't.
You may wish that to be true, but it is not. And if you took the time to understand why, you'd recognize that removing rights from corporations would be a total disaster of epic proportions. Say goodbye to any decent reporting, for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The funny thing is even if you were right you'd still be wrong, as unless you support the government seizing the means of production(now where was that idea from...?) the site owners still have their property rights which would allow them to give you the boot from their property at their discretion, an act which would in no way infringe upon your rights because you never had a right to use their property to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a meaningless one-liner
sometimes breaks through...
**The "Back the Story" link is certainly apt! Nothing but fictional tales here, impossibly of corporations being "persons"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a meaningless one-liner
Corporate personhood is only "court doctrine" made up out of the blue by a HANDFUL OF LAWYERS, like qualified immunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In ANY conflict of "natural" persons versus corporations...
the latter, MERE FICTIONS, have no Rights and don't matter!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In ANY conflict of "natural" persons versus corpor
And now apparently I'm let run for a while! After was one comment, then block upon block.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As practical fact We The People can change the Constitution!
AT WORST, even if you were correct!
Corporations CANNOT. They -- and their paid shills like YOU -- can only ASSERT FICTIONS CONSTANTLY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporations are intended to SERVE The Public, not rule over!
Otherwise, all ANY gov't need do according to YOU to be entirely "Constitutional", is set up corporations and authorize with power. -- Like Nazi Germany, not coincidentally!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporations are intended to SERVE The Public, not rule over
Bedrock law as any American know -- not romneys and masnicks --
therefore again showing you corporatists just LIE about "Constitutional" to support your goals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On other hand, here's GOOD NEWS from modern Germany:
Germany Fines YouTube Six Figures for Removing Video of Anti-Lockdown Protest
https://www.mediaite.com/news/germany-fines-youtube-six-figures-for-removing-video-of-anti-l ockdown-protest/
SO at least modern democracy holds that corporations CAN BE ORDERED TO HOST SPEECH.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On other hand, here's GOOD NEWS from modern Germany:
In Germany, yes.. probably most of Europe. No First Amendment in Europe though.
I would say maybe you would be happier over here but, then again we are all liberal socialists so maybe not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On other hand, here's GOOD NEWS from modern Germany:
If corporations can be ordered to host speech, they can also be ordered to remove speech: then your ability to post online then relies on government approval, otherwise known as censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well then, Julian Bradley. I hope you enjoy goat.se and furry porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I clipped a bit more than I should have from that quote, but it still holds, re content about or directed to said official.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Trolls'? Never heard of them
Balderdash, I'm not aware of any such group or type of person who would deliberately post such content just to poke at and mock a politician for fun and/or to to show how stupid their arguments were, who would dare be so very mean to a member of the nobility after all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK,its time.
We need abit of backup with the state and Gov. but.
Lets make a channel, that there are NO censorship. and let it run for 30-60 days and Lets see all the complaints.
We can invite Anyone that wants to come, and no one will be kicked.
BUT, we want your real name and data, WHICH will not be shared to anyone joining.
Then we collect all the DMCA, and abuse, and BS. And show it to them. If they can get anything said or done while in the forums, I will LOL myself to sleep.
We can make sections for different comments and Maybe get them to stick to 1 comment?
We can collect all the RIAA/MPAA and everyone companies complaints and SHOW them to them.
Show them the What happened in the past, when the Internet Took off.
Also collect the data on the REAL nuts out there. SHOW them what Humans Look like in the wild.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OK,its time.
I doubt that would work, as many Repugnant politicians are bigots who have learnt that they need to tone it down to get elected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The flat-out Leftist BIASED garbage this site keeps putting out is pretty disgusting. It's all 100% leftist views. So all we see is their biased views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's very clear
that so many Americans CRAVE, CRAVE, CRAVE the good old days of the English Aristocracy and 18th century Monarchy, where the ruling class lorded it over the peasants.
It's almost as if there wasn't a war to rid themselves of that.
Gormless morons who pontificate about FREEDOM, while enslaving their fellow people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They just have no clue that they are meant to be public servants, or what public service is. They are petty warlords who think god appointed them kings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminder: "No spam allowed" remains lawful free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So... we'll end up with the widest possible website since all Twitter posts will be put next to each other. That's gonna be fun to navigate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even side-by-side could be said to be biased as those on the left are more likely to be seen than those you have to scroll over to see. For true equality the platforms will need to replace any sorting with a 'Random account' button where you click it and are taken to a random account selected from the entire user base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]