Senator Steve Daines Decides To Spit On The 1st Amendment Again: Wants To Ban Moderation Of Politicians

from the politicians-aren't-a-protected-class-steve dept

I'm beginning to think that Montana Senator Steve Daines really, really doesn't like the 1st Amendment. Instead, he likes to wrap himself in a faux American flag as he pretends to be patriotic, while attempting to stamp out the rights the 1st Amendment provides to Americans. Last week, we wrote about his attempt to amend the Constitution (specifically, chipping away at the 1st Amendment), to make flag burning illegal.

This week, he decided to just spit on the 1st Amendment itself and introduce yet another unconstitutional social media moderation bill that would amend Section 230. Called the "Preserving Political Speech Online Act," the bill does a few different things, but the key one seems to be... to make politicians like himself a special protected class. Because, Senators like himself, worth over $30 million, clearly are an oppressed class.

There's some stuff about how if you take political advertisements from some candidates you have to take them from all candidates. But the really sketchy stuff is in how it modifies Section 230. It would change Section (c)(2) -- the part of Section 230 that is rarely relied upon, regarding "good faith" blocking of content -- such that the "otherwise objectionable" bit is deleted, and replaced with "threatening or promoting illegal activity." It would also remove the line that sites are protected for blocking material "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

Of course, this misunderstands the nature of both Section 230 (and how (c)(1) already protects most moderation) and the 1st Amendment, which already protects most content moderation editorial choices as well. But, then Daines has to take it a step further and make absolutely sure his bill is blatantly unconstitutional. Because it also adds in a prohibition on certain types of moderation. It says you can no longer moderate "political speech." Apparently Daines wants to make sure all Nazis are protected when they promote fascism. His bill would add in this bit of unconstitutional garbage:

PROHIBITION OF BAD FAITH BLOCKING AND SCREENING.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), it shall not be considered good faith for a provider of an interactive computer service to block, censor, or screen material on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or political affiliation or speech

Now, race, color, religion, sex, and national origin are already protected classes. Political affiliation is not. Nor should it be. And, flat out saying that you're regulating speech here should have raised all of the 1st Amendment alarm bells possible. But it did not. Because this is not a serious attempt at serious policy making from a serious person. This is grandstand culture warrioring from a silly politician with nothing better to do than rile up an ignorant, silly base.

Amusingly, there's an exemption on that stuff for a website that is "dedicated to a specific issue, policy, belief, or viewpoint." So... if you set up a site specifically for Nazis, you can now ban people who don't support fascism. But the webhost hosting the Nazi focused site, which is open generally to the public, cannot ban the Nazi website. Is that really what Daines wants?

And, left unsaid so far, is that all of this is based on a total myth that anyone is being moderated for their political viewpoints. They are not. People are being moderated for violating policies such as by spreading mis- and disinformation, harassing others, trolling others, and other such general mayhem. No one is being moderated for supporting any standard political viewpoints. It's a myth that fools like Steve Daines embrace because to admit the truth would be to admit that their most vocal supporters are ignorant rubes and assholes.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, flag burning, free speech, political speech, politicians, protected class, section 230, steve daines

Florida Tells Court: Actually, It's Section 230 That's Unconstitutional (Not Our Social Media Law)

from the florida-man-does-florida-man-things dept

As you'll recall, Florida's social media bill was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge a couple weeks ago. The state has already moved to appeal that decision, so we'll have to see how the judges on the 11th Circuit feel about all of this. However, apparently the case in the lower court is still moving forward in some way (I had assumed that after the preliminary injunction and appeal that the case would be stayed until the appeal was decided, but apparently not? Understanding civil procedure is an impossibility).

Earlier today Florida filed its response to the lawsuit, which is... not much. It's basically this sentence over and over again:

This paragraph contains legal conclusions that do not require a response. Defendants deny any remaining allegations in this paragraph.

I count 142 such statements (roughly). When you get down to the defenses, they toss out a bunch, but the one that caught my attention is their sixth defense:

Insofar as 47 U.S.C. § 230 would render all or any portion of the Act unconstitutional, 47 U.S.C. § 230 is invalid and in violation of the First Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and the principle of federalism.

The issue here is that while the law has been put on hold for violating the 1st Amendment, one of the other arguments is that even if it were constitutional (which it is not), it would be pre-empted by Section 230. We've discussed this in the past. Section 230 makes it clear that states cannot contravene federal law regarding moderation and if they do they're pre-empted. So, to counter that, Florida is now doing a "it's not our law that's unconstitutional, it's actually Section 230 that's unconstitutional!"

I guess we can add this to Donald Trump's recent Florida lawsuit that is also challenging the constitutionality of Section 230.

I doubt this particular challenge to Section 230 will end up getting very far, but it does seem notable as a case involving a state government arguing that Section 230 is, itself, unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment, 10th Amendment, and federalism. Of course, as the social media bill itself has shown, Florida does not exactly have a good track record for understanding what is, and what is not, a violation of the 1st Amendment. But, of course, when you have clueless Supreme Court Justices asking for cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 230, eventually we were going to get to this point.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderatin, federalism, florida, pre-emption, section 230, social media