Kathy Hochul vs Andrew L. Carter

If you haven't heard of Andrew L. Carter, don't feel bad. Until late this afternoon, I hadn't heard of him, either. Carter is the judge from New York's Southern District who presided over a lawsuit brought by a blogger and Rumble. The lawsuit objected to the Hateful Conduct Law, which Kathy Hochul, New York's governor, signed into law.

This law didn't stand much of a chance of becoming enforced because it "defines hateful conduct broadly as 'the use of a social media network to vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.'" In other words, "much of what the bill defines as 'hateful conduct' is protected by the First Amendment. Despite a disclaimer that '[n]othing in this section shall be construed … as an obligation imposed on a social media network that adversely affects the rights or freedoms of any persons, such as exercising the right of free speech pursuant to the [F]irst [A]mendment,' the bill’s constraint on content that 'vilif[ies]' or 'humiliate[s]' people would clearly apply to some protected speech..."

This is particularly interesting and potentially troubling:

"The Hateful Conduct Law both compels social media networks to speak about the contours of hate speech and chills the constitutionally protected speech of social media users, without articulating a compelling governmental interest or ensuring that the law is narrowly tailored to that goal," said Judge Carter Jr. in his ruling.

The law, according to Judge Carter, conflicts with the United States’ "national commitment to the free expression of speech, even where that speech is offensive or repugnant."

"The law is clearly aimed at regulating speech. Social media websites are publishers and curators of speech, and their users are engaged in speech by writing, posting, and creating content. Although the law ostensibly is aimed at social media networks, it fundamentally implicates the speech of the networks' users by mandating a policy and mechanism by which users can complain about other users’ protected speech."

If this lawsuit is appealed to the Supreme Court, SCOTUS will have the final say over whether social media platforms are publishers and curators of speech. Ruling on that part of the lawsuit is potentially troubling because, if left to stand, this ruling would effectively make Section 230's protections void. That's something social media platforms would fight hard against.