{"id":49452,"date":"2021-07-01T01:30:48","date_gmt":"2021-07-01T05:30:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thelehighacresgazette.com\/news\/?p=49452"},"modified":"2021-07-01T01:30:58","modified_gmt":"2021-07-01T05:30:58","slug":"federal-judge-blocks-social-media-law-signed-by-gov-ron-desantis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thelehighacresgazette.com\/news\/2021\/07\/federal-judge-blocks-social-media-law-signed-by-gov-ron-desantis\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal judge blocks social media law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Calling it \u201criddled with imprecision and ambiguity,\u201d a federal judge Wednesday blocked a new state law targeting social-media behemoths such as Facebook and Twitter that can strip politicians and other users from their platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction as he sided with online industry groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which filed the lawsuit challenging the measure pushed by Gov. Ron DeSantis and approved by Republican lawmakers this spring.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe legislation now at issue was an effort to rein in social-media providers deemed too large and too liberal. Balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate government interest,\u201d Hinkle wrote in Wednesday\u2019s 31-page order<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The controversial law seeks to prevent large social-media platforms from banning political candidates from their sites and to require companies to publish \u2014 and apply consistently \u2014 standards about issues such as banning users or blocking their content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The industry groups sought an injunction to block the law from going into effect on Thursday, arguing that the measure violates the First Amendment rights of private companies and would harm their ability to moderate content on their platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trying to flip the First Amendment argument, lawyers for the state maintained that the social-media platforms are engaging in censorship and violating users\u2019 speech rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But Hinkle scolded the state for its position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFirst, the state has asserted it is on the side of the First Amendment; the plaintiffs are not. It is perhaps a nice sound bite. But the assertion is wholly at odds with accepted constitutional principles,\u201d the judge wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cconcentration of market power among large social-media providers does not change the governing First Amendment principles,\u201d Hinkle wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhatever might be said of the largest providers\u2019 monopolistic conduct, the internet provides a greater opportunity for individuals to publish their views \u2014 and for candidates to communicate directly with voters \u2014 than existed before the internet arrived,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiffs \u201care likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that these statutes violate the First Amendment,\u201d Hinkle wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cLike prior First Amendment restrictions, this is an instance of burning the house to roast a pig,\u201d the judge said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Hinkle found that the state law also is flawed because it targets only large companies, applying to platforms that have annual gross revenues of more than $100 million or have at least 100 million monthly individual \u201cparticipants\u201d globally, such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under the law, companies that remove political candidates from platforms could face fines of $250,000 a day for statewide candidates and $25,000 a day for other candidates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs the Supreme Court has recognized, discrimination between speakers is often a tell for content discrimination,\u201d Hinkle wrote. \u201cThat is the case here. The state has suggested no other basis for imposing these restrictions only on the largest providers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The new law includes a provision that shields theme-park operators from the restrictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hinkle said that the law \u201cdiscriminates on its face among otherwise-identical speakers: between social-media providers that do or do not meet the legislation\u2019s size requirements and are not under common ownership with a theme park.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DeSantis, a close ally of former President Donald Trump, pushed the social-media crackdown after Twitter and Facebook blocked Trump from their platforms after his supporters rampaged at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDay in and day out, our freedom of speech as conservatives is under attack by the \u2018big tech\u2019 oligarchs in Silicon Valley,\u201d the governor said at a bill-signing ceremony last month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DeSantis\u2019 office did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Wednesday. But the governor, a Harvard Law School graduate, has said he believes the state will prevail in the lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hinkle\u2019s order rejected the state\u2019s arguments that the law was not subject to \u201cstrict scrutiny\u201d by the court. Viewpoint- and content-based restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny, the judge wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cLaws that are facially content-neutral, but that cannot be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, or that were adopted because of disagreement with the speaker\u2019s message, also must satisfy strict scrutiny,\u201d he said. \u201cThese principles plainly require strict scrutiny here. The Florida statutes at issue are about as content-based as it gets.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To survive strict scrutiny, \u201can infringement on speech must further a compelling state interest and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest,\u201d Hinkle noted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThese statutes come nowhere close. Indeed, the state has advanced no argument suggesting the statutes can survive strict scrutiny. They plainly cannot,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NetChoice Vice President and General Counsel Carl Szabo hailed Hinkle\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhen the state\u2019s own lawyers can\u2019t explain how the law works or even identify to whom it applies, there\u2019s just no way that Florida\u2019s enforcement of that law would keep users, creators, and advertisers safe from the tidal wave of offensive content and hate speech that would surely ensue,\u201d he said in a prepared statement. \u201cAmerica\u2019s judiciary system is designed to protect our constitutional rights, and today\u2019s ruling is no different, ensuring that Florida\u2019s politically motivated law does not force Floridians to endure racial epithets, aggressive homophobia, pornographic material, beheadings, or other gruesome content just to use the internet.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During a hearing Monday, Hinkle peppered lawyers with questions and swiped at the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI won\u2019t put you on the spot and ask you if you\u2019ve ever dealt with a statute that was more poorly drafted,\u201d the judge asked lawyers representing DeSantis\u2019 administration.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Calling it \u201criddled with imprecision and ambiguity,\u201d a federal judge Wednesday blocked a new state law targeting social-media behemoths such as Facebook and Twitter that can strip politicians and other… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":49453,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[452],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thelehighacresgazette.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49452"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thelehighacresgazette.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thelehighacresgazette.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thelehighacresgazette.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thelehighacresgazette.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49452"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/thelehighacresgazette.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49452\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":49455,"href":"https:\/\/thelehighacresgazette.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49452\/revisions\/49455"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thelehighacresgazette.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/49453"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thelehighacresgazette.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49452"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thelehighacresgazette.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49452"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thelehighacresgazette.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49452"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}