California has been toying with unconstitutional content moderation bills,
and now New York has one as well. Senator Brad Hoylman -- who got his law
degree from Harvard, where presumably they teach about the 1st Amendment --
has proudly introduced a hellishly unconstitutional social media bill.
Hoylman announced in his press release that the bill will "hold tech
companies accountable for promoting vaccine misinformation and hate
speech".

Have you noticed the problem with the bill already? I knew you could.
Whether we like it or not, the 1st Amendment protects both vaccine
misinformation and hate speech. It is unconstitutional to punish anyone for
that speech, and it's even more ridiculous to punish websites that host
that content, but had nothing to do with the creation of it.

Believe it or not, the actual details of the bill are even worse than
Hoylman's description of it. The operative clauses are outlandishly bad.

Prohibited activities. No person, by conduct either unlawful In itself or
unreasonable under all the circumstances, shall knowingly or recklessly
create, maintain or contribute to a condition in New York State that
endangers the safety or health of the public through the promotion of
content, including through the use of algorithms or other automated systems
that prioritize content by a method other than solely by time and date such
content was created, the person knows or reasonably should know:

1. Advocates for the use of force, is directed to inciting or producing
imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action;

2. Advocates for self-harm, is directed to inciting or producing imminent
self-harm, and is likely to incite or produce such action; or

3. Includes a false statement of fact or fraudulent medical theory that is
likely to endanger the safety or health of the public.

This is so dumb that it deserves to be broken down bit by bit.

First off, any kind of content can, conceivably "endanger the health and
safety of the public". That's ridiculously broad. I saw an advertisement
for McDonald's today on social media. Does that endanger the health and
safety of the public? It sure could. Heart disease kills more people then
Wuhan Flu does.

Second, the bill says no use of algorithms or otherwise automated systems
"other than solely by time and date such content was created" meaning that
this criminalizes all of the major search engines. Want the most relevant
search result for the medical issues you're having? I'm sorry, sir, that's
not allowed in New York, as a result might endanger your health and safety.

But it gets worse. The line that says...

"Advocates for the use of force, is directed to inciting or producing
imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action"

....is a weird one because clearly someone somewhere thought that this
magical incantation might make this constitutional. The "directed to
inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or
produce such action" is -- verbatim -- the Brandenburg test for a very,
very limited exception to the 1st Amendment. But, do you notice the issue?
Such speech is already exempted from the 1st Amendment. Leaving aside how
astoundingly little content meets the Brandenburg test (especially the
"imminent lawless action" part) this part of the law, at best, seems merely
to argue that "unconstitutional speech is unconstitutional". That's... not
helpful.

The second point is even weirder. It more or less tries to mirror the
Brandenburg standard, but with a few not-so-subtle changes:

"Advocates for self-harm, is directed to inciting or producing imminent
self-harm, and is likely to incite or produce such action"

Which, nice try, but just because you mimicked the "inciting or producing
imminent" part doesn't let you get around the fact that discussions of
"self-harm" in most cases remains constitutionally protected. So long as
the effort is not lawless, then there's a huge 1st Amendment problem here.

But the really problematic part is point 3:

"Includes a false statement of fact or fraudulent medical theory that is
likely to endanger the safety or health of the public."

Ooooooooooof. That's bad. First of all, most "false statements of fact" and
many "fraudulent medical theories" do in fact remain protected under the
1st Amendment. And, last I checked, New York is still bound by the 1st
Amendment. Also, this is dumber than dumb. Remember, we're in the middle of
a pandemic and the science is changing rapidly. Lots of things we thought
were clear at first turned out to be very different -- don't wear masks /
wear masks, for example.

In fact, this prong most closely resembles how China first handled reports
of COVID-19. Early on in the pandemic we wrote about how China's laws
against medical misinformation very likely helped COVID-19 spread much
faster, because the Chinese government silenced Dr. Li Wenliang, one of the
first doctors in China who called attention to the new disease. The police
showed up to Dr. Li's home and told him he had violated the law by
"spreading untruthful information online" and forced him to take down his
warnings about COVID-19.

And rather than realize just how disastrous that was, Senator Hoylman wants
to make it New York's law!

It gets worse. The law, like most laws, has definitions. And the
definitions are a mess. It uses an existing New York penal law definition
of "recklessly" that requires those attempting to prosecute the law to
establish the state of mind of... algorithms? Again, the bill says that if
an algorithm "recklessly" creates, maintains, or contributes to such banned
information, it can violate the law. But the reckless standard requires a
"person" be "aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that such result will occur". Good luck proving that
with an algorithm.

Then we get to the enforcement provision. Incredibly, it makes this much,
much worse.

Enforcement. Whenever there shall be a violation of this article, the
attorney general, in the name of the people of the state of New York, or a
city corporation counsel on behalf of the locality, may bring an action in
the Supreme Court or federal district court to enjoin and restrain such
violations and to obtain restitution and damages.

Private right of action. Any person, firm, corporation or association that
has been damaged as a result of a person's acts or omissions in violation
of this article shall be entitled to bring an action for recovery of
damages or to enforce this article in the Supreme Court or federal district
court.

The government enforcing a speech code is already problematic -- but then
enabling this private right of action is just ridiculous. Think of how many
wasteful stupid lawsuits would be filed within seconds of this law going
into effect by anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers against people online
advocating in favor of vaccines and masks and other COVID-preventative
techniques?

This law is so blatantly unconstitutional and problematic that it's not
even funny. And that's not even getting to the simple fact that Section 230
pre-empts any such state law, as we saw in Texas and Florida. Hoylman,
laughably, suggests that he can ignore the pre-emption issue in his press
release by saying:

"The conscious decision to elevate certain content is a separate,
affirmative act from the mere hosting of information and therefore not
contemplated by the protections of Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act."

Except that's wrong. 230 specifically protects all moderation decisions and
that includes elevating content. That's why Section 230 protects search
results. And, as Jeff Kosseff rightly notes the 2nd Circuit (which covers
NY) already addressed this exact claim in the Force v. Facebook case (the
ridiculous case that attempted to hold Facebook liable for terrorism that
impacted the plaintiff, because some unrelated terrorists also used
Facebook). There the court said, pretty clearly:

We disagree with plaintiffs' contention that Facebook's use of algorithms
renders it a non-publisher. First, we find no basis in the ordinary meaning
of "publisher," the other text of Section 230, or decisions interpreting
Section 230, for concluding that an interactive computer service is not the
"publisher" of third-party information when it uses tools such as
algorithms that are designed to match that information with a consumer's
interests. Cf., e.g., Roommates.Com, 521 F.3d at 1172 (recognizing that
Matchmaker.com website, which "provided neutral tools specifically designed
to match romantic partners depending on their voluntary inputs," was immune
under Section 230(c)(1) ) (citing Carafano, Inc. , 339 F.3d 1119 );
Carafano , 339 F.3d at 1124–25 ("Matchmaker's decision to structure the
information provided by users allows the company to offer additional
features, such as ‘matching’ profiles with similar characteristics ...,
[and such features] [a]rguably promote[ ] the expressed Congressional
policy ‘to promote the continued development of the Internet and other
interactive computer services.’ 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(1)."); Herrick v.
Grindr, LLC , 765 F. App'x 586, 591 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order) ("To the
extent that [plaintiff's claims] are premised on Grindr's [user-profile]
matching and geolocation features, they are likewise barred ....").

On Wednesday, 5 January 2022 at 14:23:27 UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> California has been toying with unconstitutional content moderation bills,
> and now New York has one as well. Senator Brad Hoylman -- who got his law
> degree from Harvard, where presumably they teach about the 1st Amendment --
> has proudly introduced a hellishly unconstitutional social media bill.
> Hoylman announced in his press release that the bill will "hold tech
> companies accountable for promoting vaccine misinformation and hate
> speech".
>
> Have you noticed the problem with the bill already? I knew you could.
> Whether we like it or not, the 1st Amendment protects both vaccine
> misinformation and hate speech. It is unconstitutional to punish anyone for
> that speech, and it's even more ridiculous to punish websites that host
> that content, but had nothing to do with the creation of it.
>
> Believe it or not, the actual details of the bill are even worse than
> Hoylman's description of it. The operative clauses are outlandishly bad.
>
> Prohibited activities. No person, by conduct either unlawful In itself or
> unreasonable under all the circumstances, shall knowingly or recklessly
> create, maintain or contribute to a condition in New York State that
> endangers the safety or health of the public through the promotion of
> content, including through the use of algorithms or other automated systems
> that prioritize content by a method other than solely by time and date such
> content was created, the person knows or reasonably should know:
>
> 1. Advocates for the use of force, is directed to inciting or producing
> imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action;
>
> 2. Advocates for self-harm, is directed to inciting or producing imminent
> self-harm, and is likely to incite or produce such action; or
>
> 3. Includes a false statement of fact or fraudulent medical theory that is
> likely to endanger the safety or health of the public.
>
> This is so dumb that it deserves to be broken down bit by bit.
>
> First off, any kind of content can, conceivably "endanger the health and
> safety of the public". That's ridiculously broad. I saw an advertisement
> for McDonald's today on social media. Does that endanger the health and
> safety of the public? It sure could. Heart disease kills more people then
> Wuhan Flu does.
>
> Second, the bill says no use of algorithms or otherwise automated systems
> "other than solely by time and date such content was created" meaning that
> this criminalizes all of the major search engines. Want the most relevant
> search result for the medical issues you're having? I'm sorry, sir, that's
> not allowed in New York, as a result might endanger your health and safety.
>
> But it gets worse. The line that says...
>
> "Advocates for the use of force, is directed to inciting or producing
> imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action"
>
> ...is a weird one because clearly someone somewhere thought that this
> magical incantation might make this constitutional. The "directed to
> inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or
> produce such action" is -- verbatim -- the Brandenburg test for a very,
> very limited exception to the 1st Amendment. But, do you notice the issue?
> Such speech is already exempted from the 1st Amendment. Leaving aside how
> astoundingly little content meets the Brandenburg test (especially the
> "imminent lawless action" part) this part of the law, at best, seems merely
> to argue that "unconstitutional speech is unconstitutional". That's... not
> helpful.
>
> The second point is even weirder. It more or less tries to mirror the
> Brandenburg standard, but with a few not-so-subtle changes:
>
> "Advocates for self-harm, is directed to inciting or producing imminent
> self-harm, and is likely to incite or produce such action"
>
> Which, nice try, but just because you mimicked the "inciting or producing
> imminent" part doesn't let you get around the fact that discussions of
> "self-harm" in most cases remains constitutionally protected. So long as
> the effort is not lawless, then there's a huge 1st Amendment problem here..
>
> But the really problematic part is point 3:
>
> "Includes a false statement of fact or fraudulent medical theory that is
> likely to endanger the safety or health of the public."
>
> Ooooooooooof. That's bad. First of all, most "false statements of fact" and
> many "fraudulent medical theories" do in fact remain protected under the
> 1st Amendment. And, last I checked, New York is still bound by the 1st
> Amendment. Also, this is dumber than dumb. Remember, we're in the middle of
> a pandemic and the science is changing rapidly. Lots of things we thought
> were clear at first turned out to be very different -- don't wear masks /
> wear masks, for example.
>
> In fact, this prong most closely resembles how China first handled reports
> of COVID-19. Early on in the pandemic we wrote about how China's laws
> against medical misinformation very likely helped COVID-19 spread much
> faster, because the Chinese government silenced Dr. Li Wenliang, one of the
> first doctors in China who called attention to the new disease. The police
> showed up to Dr. Li's home and told him he had violated the law by
> "spreading untruthful information online" and forced him to take down his
> warnings about COVID-19.
>
> And rather than realize just how disastrous that was, Senator Hoylman wants
> to make it New York's law!
>
> It gets worse. The law, like most laws, has definitions. And the
> definitions are a mess. It uses an existing New York penal law definition
> of "recklessly" that requires those attempting to prosecute the law to
> establish the state of mind of... algorithms? Again, the bill says that if
> an algorithm "recklessly" creates, maintains, or contributes to such banned
> information, it can violate the law. But the reckless standard requires a
> "person" be "aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and
> unjustifiable risk that such result will occur". Good luck proving that
> with an algorithm.
>
> Then we get to the enforcement provision. Incredibly, it makes this much,
> much worse.
>
> Enforcement. Whenever there shall be a violation of this article, the
> attorney general, in the name of the people of the state of New York, or a
> city corporation counsel on behalf of the locality, may bring an action in
> the Supreme Court or federal district court to enjoin and restrain such
> violations and to obtain restitution and damages.
>
> Private right of action. Any person, firm, corporation or association that
> has been damaged as a result of a person's acts or omissions in violation
> of this article shall be entitled to bring an action for recovery of
> damages or to enforce this article in the Supreme Court or federal district
> court.
>
> The government enforcing a speech code is already problematic -- but then
> enabling this private right of action is just ridiculous. Think of how many
> wasteful stupid lawsuits would be filed within seconds of this law going
> into effect by anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers against people online
> advocating in favor of vaccines and masks and other COVID-preventative
> techniques?
>
> This law is so blatantly unconstitutional and problematic that it's not
> even funny. And that's not even getting to the simple fact that Section 230
> pre-empts any such state law, as we saw in Texas and Florida. Hoylman,
> laughably, suggests that he can ignore the pre-emption issue in his press
> release by saying:
>
> "The conscious decision to elevate certain content is a separate,
> affirmative act from the mere hosting of information and therefore not
> contemplated by the protections of Section 230 of the Communications
> Decency Act."
>
> Except that's wrong. 230 specifically protects all moderation decisions and
> that includes elevating content. That's why Section 230 protects search
> results. And, as Jeff Kosseff rightly notes the 2nd Circuit (which covers
> NY) already addressed this exact claim in the Force v. Facebook case (the
> ridiculous case that attempted to hold Facebook liable for terrorism that
> impacted the plaintiff, because some unrelated terrorists also used
> Facebook). There the court said, pretty clearly:
>
> We disagree with plaintiffs' contention that Facebook's use of algorithms
> renders it a non-publisher. First, we find no basis in the ordinary meaning
> of "publisher," the other text of Section 230, or decisions interpreting
> Section 230, for concluding that an interactive computer service is not the
> "publisher" of third-party information when it uses tools such as
> algorithms that are designed to match that information with a consumer's
> interests. Cf., e.g., Roommates.Com, 521 F.3d at 1172 (recognizing that
> Matchmaker.com website, which "provided neutral tools specifically designed
> to match romantic partners depending on their voluntary inputs," was immune
> under Section 230(c)(1) ) (citing Carafano, Inc. , 339 F.3d 1119 );
> Carafano , 339 F.3d at 1124–25 ("Matchmaker's decision to structure the
> information provided by users allows the company to offer additional
> features, such as ‘matching’ profiles with similar characteristics ...,
> [and such features] [a]rguably promote[ ] the expressed Congressional
> policy ‘to promote the continued development of the Internet and other
> interactive computer services.’ 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(1)."); Herrick v.
> Grindr, LLC , 765 F. App'x 586, 591 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order) ("To the
> extent that [plaintiff's claims] are premised on Grindr's [user-profile]
> matching and geolocation features, they are likewise barred ....").
>
> So... the law clearly violates the 1st Amendment, is pre-empted by Section
> 230, and, if it actually went into practice, would actually be both wildly
> abused and dangerous.
>
> What's it got going for it?
>
> Well, as Kosseff also points out, if it passed, and somehow the
> Texas/Florida laws were brought back from the dead, social media websites
> might get in trouble both for leaving up the same content they could get in
> trouble for taking down elsewhere. And, at least for those of us who write
> about content moderation, well, that will be amusing to cover. But, beyond
> that, this bill is complete garbage. It's the Democrat mirror image of the
> garbage Florida and Texas Republicans passed -- equally as dumb, equally as
> dangerous, and equally as unconstitutional, just at the other end of the
> spectrum.
>
> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20211229/17174248199/ny-senator-proposes-ridiculously-unconstitutional-social-media-law-that-is-mirror-opposite-equally-unconstitutional-laws.shtml

On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 2:23:27 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> California has been toying with unconstitutional content moderation bills,
> and now New York has one as well. Senator Brad Hoylman -- who got his law
> degree from Harvard, where presumably they teach about the 1st Amendment --
> has proudly introduced a hellishly unconstitutional social media bill.

Jan 07 2019

Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the following statement on legislation being considered by the Senate tomorrow that would encourage states to deny contracts to individuals or organizations boycotting Israel:

“This Israel anti-boycott legislation would give states a free pass to restrict First Amendment protections for millions of Americans. Despite my strong support for Israel, I oppose this legislation because it clearly violates the Constitution.

“The right to free speech is the foundation of our democracy. Any legislation that encroaches on that foundation should be considered with great caution. I don’t believe that has been the case here.

“Federal courts have already ruled against similar laws regarding boycotts of Israel in Arizona and Kansas. I fail to see why supporters believe this legislation would be any different.

“Equally alarming, the legislation would also apply to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, territory that Israel has never claimed as its own. That dangerous precedent would further erode our credibility as a neutral arbiter and push a potential peace agreement further out of reach.

“Instead of wasting time on this unconstitutional bill, the Senate should instead focus on reopening the government by voting on the federal funding package the House passed last week.

“I fail to see why this legislation is a priority during the government shutdown. The Senate has a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and keep the government running—this bill does neither.”

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+states+have+imposed+anti-bds+laws&gs_ivs=1#tts=0

> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20211229/17174248199/ny-senator-proposes-ridiculously-unconstitutional-social-media-law-that-is-mirror-opposite-equally-unconstitutional-laws.shtml

#gawdbleshuhmerla! #itsallaboutthebenjaminsbaby!

chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 2:23:27 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:

>> California has been toying with unconstitutional content moderation bills,
>> and now New York has one as well. Senator Brad Hoylman -- who got his law
>> degree from Harvard, where presumably they teach about the 1st Amendment --
>> has proudly introduced a hellishly unconstitutional social media bill.
>
> Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the
> following statement on legislation being considered by the Senate
> tomorrow that would encourage states to deny contracts to individuals or
> organizations boycotting Israel:

That's not what we're talking about here, Mime.

You don't get to hijack every discussion and make it about your crusade
against the Jooz.

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:03:19 AM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 2:23:27 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> >> California has been toying with unconstitutional content moderation bills,
> >> and now New York has one as well. Senator Brad Hoylman -- who got his law
> >> degree from Harvard, where presumably they teach about the 1st Amendment --
> >> has proudly introduced a hellishly unconstitutional social media bill.
> >
> > Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the
> > following statement on legislation being considered by the Senate
> > tomorrow that would encourage states to deny contracts to individuals or
> > organizations boycotting Israel:
> That's not what we're talking about here, Mime.
>
> You don't get to hijack every discussion and make it about your crusade
> against the Jooz.

You're worried about a potential speech infringement, and neglect the constitutional free speech you have already lost.

Why is that?

On 1/5/2022 10:02 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 January 2022 at 14:23:27 UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
>> California has been toying with unconstitutional content moderation bills,
>> and now New York has one as well. Senator Brad Hoylman -- who got his law
>> degree from Harvard, where presumably they teach about the 1st Amendment --
>> has proudly introduced a hellishly unconstitutional social media bill.
>> Hoylman announced in his press release that the bill will "hold tech
>> companies accountable for promoting vaccine misinformation and hate
>> speech".
>>
>> Have you noticed the problem with the bill already? I knew you could.
>> Whether we like it or not, the 1st Amendment protects both vaccine
>> misinformation and hate speech. It is unconstitutional to punish anyone for
>> that speech, and it's even more ridiculous to punish websites that host
>> that content, but had nothing to do with the creation of it.
>>
>> Believe it or not, the actual details of the bill are even worse than
>> Hoylman's description of it. The operative clauses are outlandishly bad.
>>
>> Prohibited activities. No person, by conduct either unlawful In itself or
>> unreasonable under all the circumstances, shall knowingly or recklessly
>> create, maintain or contribute to a condition in New York State that
>> endangers the safety or health of the public through the promotion of
>> content, including through the use of algorithms or other automated systems
>> that prioritize content by a method other than solely by time and date such
>> content was created, the person knows or reasonably should know:
>>
>> 1. Advocates for the use of force, is directed to inciting or producing
>> imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action;
>>
>> 2. Advocates for self-harm, is directed to inciting or producing imminent
>> self-harm, and is likely to incite or produce such action; or
>>
>> 3. Includes a false statement of fact or fraudulent medical theory that is
>> likely to endanger the safety or health of the public.
>>
>> This is so dumb that it deserves to be broken down bit by bit.
>>
>> First off, any kind of content can, conceivably "endanger the health and
>> safety of the public". That's ridiculously broad. I saw an advertisement
>> for McDonald's today on social media. Does that endanger the health and
>> safety of the public? It sure could. Heart disease kills more people then
>> Wuhan Flu does.
>>
>> Second, the bill says no use of algorithms or otherwise automated systems
>> "other than solely by time and date such content was created" meaning that
>> this criminalizes all of the major search engines. Want the most relevant
>> search result for the medical issues you're having? I'm sorry, sir, that's
>> not allowed in New York, as a result might endanger your health and safety.
>>
>> But it gets worse. The line that says...
>>
>> "Advocates for the use of force, is directed to inciting or producing
>> imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action"
>>
>> ...is a weird one because clearly someone somewhere thought that this
>> magical incantation might make this constitutional. The "directed to
>> inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or
>> produce such action" is -- verbatim -- the Brandenburg test for a very,
>> very limited exception to the 1st Amendment. But, do you notice the issue?
>> Such speech is already exempted from the 1st Amendment. Leaving aside how
>> astoundingly little content meets the Brandenburg test (especially the
>> "imminent lawless action" part) this part of the law, at best, seems merely
>> to argue that "unconstitutional speech is unconstitutional". That's... not
>> helpful.
>>
>> The second point is even weirder. It more or less tries to mirror the
>> Brandenburg standard, but with a few not-so-subtle changes:
>>
>> "Advocates for self-harm, is directed to inciting or producing imminent
>> self-harm, and is likely to incite or produce such action"
>>
>> Which, nice try, but just because you mimicked the "inciting or producing
>> imminent" part doesn't let you get around the fact that discussions of
>> "self-harm" in most cases remains constitutionally protected. So long as
>> the effort is not lawless, then there's a huge 1st Amendment problem here.
>>
>> But the really problematic part is point 3:
>>
>> "Includes a false statement of fact or fraudulent medical theory that is
>> likely to endanger the safety or health of the public."
>>
>> Ooooooooooof. That's bad. First of all, most "false statements of fact" and
>> many "fraudulent medical theories" do in fact remain protected under the
>> 1st Amendment. And, last I checked, New York is still bound by the 1st
>> Amendment. Also, this is dumber than dumb. Remember, we're in the middle of
>> a pandemic and the science is changing rapidly. Lots of things we thought
>> were clear at first turned out to be very different -- don't wear masks /
>> wear masks, for example.
>>
>> In fact, this prong most closely resembles how China first handled reports
>> of COVID-19. Early on in the pandemic we wrote about how China's laws
>> against medical misinformation very likely helped COVID-19 spread much
>> faster, because the Chinese government silenced Dr. Li Wenliang, one of the
>> first doctors in China who called attention to the new disease. The police
>> showed up to Dr. Li's home and told him he had violated the law by
>> "spreading untruthful information online" and forced him to take down his
>> warnings about COVID-19.
>>
>> And rather than realize just how disastrous that was, Senator Hoylman wants
>> to make it New York's law!
>>
>> It gets worse. The law, like most laws, has definitions. And the
>> definitions are a mess. It uses an existing New York penal law definition
>> of "recklessly" that requires those attempting to prosecute the law to
>> establish the state of mind of... algorithms? Again, the bill says that if
>> an algorithm "recklessly" creates, maintains, or contributes to such banned
>> information, it can violate the law. But the reckless standard requires a
>> "person" be "aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and
>> unjustifiable risk that such result will occur". Good luck proving that
>> with an algorithm.
>>
>> Then we get to the enforcement provision. Incredibly, it makes this much,
>> much worse.
>>
>> Enforcement. Whenever there shall be a violation of this article, the
>> attorney general, in the name of the people of the state of New York, or a
>> city corporation counsel on behalf of the locality, may bring an action in
>> the Supreme Court or federal district court to enjoin and restrain such
>> violations and to obtain restitution and damages.
>>
>> Private right of action. Any person, firm, corporation or association that
>> has been damaged as a result of a person's acts or omissions in violation
>> of this article shall be entitled to bring an action for recovery of
>> damages or to enforce this article in the Supreme Court or federal district
>> court.
>>
>> The government enforcing a speech code is already problematic -- but then
>> enabling this private right of action is just ridiculous. Think of how many
>> wasteful stupid lawsuits would be filed within seconds of this law going
>> into effect by anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers against people online
>> advocating in favor of vaccines and masks and other COVID-preventative
>> techniques?
>>
>> This law is so blatantly unconstitutional and problematic that it's not
>> even funny. And that's not even getting to the simple fact that Section 230
>> pre-empts any such state law, as we saw in Texas and Florida. Hoylman,
>> laughably, suggests that he can ignore the pre-emption issue in his press
>> release by saying:
>>
>> "The conscious decision to elevate certain content is a separate,
>> affirmative act from the mere hosting of information and therefore not
>> contemplated by the protections of Section 230 of the Communications
>> Decency Act."
>>
>> Except that's wrong. 230 specifically protects all moderation decisions and
>> that includes elevating content. That's why Section 230 protects search
>> results. And, as Jeff Kosseff rightly notes the 2nd Circuit (which covers
>> NY) already addressed this exact claim in the Force v. Facebook case (the
>> ridiculous case that attempted to hold Facebook liable for terrorism that
>> impacted the plaintiff, because some unrelated terrorists also used
>> Facebook). There the court said, pretty clearly:
>>
>> We disagree with plaintiffs' contention that Facebook's use of algorithms
>> renders it a non-publisher. First, we find no basis in the ordinary meaning
>> of "publisher," the other text of Section 230, or decisions interpreting
>> Section 230, for concluding that an interactive computer service is not the
>> "publisher" of third-party information when it uses tools such as
>> algorithms that are designed to match that information with a consumer's
>> interests. Cf., e.g., Roommates.Com, 521 F.3d at 1172 (recognizing that
>> Matchmaker.com website, which "provided neutral tools specifically designed
>> to match romantic partners depending on their voluntary inputs," was immune
>> under Section 230(c)(1) ) (citing Carafano, Inc. , 339 F.3d 1119 );
>> Carafano , 339 F.3d at 1124–25 ("Matchmaker's decision to structure the
>> information provided by users allows the company to offer additional
>> features, such as ‘matching’ profiles with similar characteristics ...,
>> [and such features] [a]rguably promote[ ] the expressed Congressional
>> policy ‘to promote the continued development of the Internet and other
>> interactive computer services.’ 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(1)."); Herrick v.
>> Grindr, LLC , 765 F. App'x 586, 591 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order) ("To the
>> extent that [plaintiff's claims] are premised on Grindr's [user-profile]
>> matching and geolocation features, they are likewise barred ....").
>>
>> So... the law clearly violates the 1st Amendment, is pre-empted by Section
>> 230, and, if it actually went into practice, would actually be both wildly
>> abused and dangerous.
>>
>> What's it got going for it?
>>
>> Well, as Kosseff also points out, if it passed, and somehow the
>> Texas/Florida laws were brought back from the dead, social media websites
>> might get in trouble both for leaving up the same content they could get in
>> trouble for taking down elsewhere. And, at least for those of us who write
>> about content moderation, well, that will be amusing to cover. But, beyond
>> that, this bill is complete garbage. It's the Democrat mirror image of the
>> garbage Florida and Texas Republicans passed -- equally as dumb, equally as
>> dangerous, and equally as unconstitutional, just at the other end of the
>> spectrum.
>>
>> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20211229/17174248199/ny-senator-proposes-ridiculously-unconstitutional-social-media-law-that-is-mirror-opposite-equally-unconstitutional-laws.shtml
>
> They already throw people in jail in Europe for this. And it's how Russia and China maintain "order." It's natural it would happen to "progressive" states in the U.S.

chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:03:19 AM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
>> chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 2:23:27 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>> California has been toying with unconstitutional content moderation bills,
>>>> and now New York has one as well. Senator Brad Hoylman -- who got his law
>>>> degree from Harvard, where presumably they teach about the 1st Amendment --
>>>> has proudly introduced a hellishly unconstitutional social media bill.
>>>
>>> Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the
>>> following statement on legislation being considered by the Senate
>>> tomorrow that would encourage states to deny contracts to individuals or
>>> organizations boycotting Israel:
>> That's not what we're talking about here, Mime.
>>
>> You don't get to hijack every discussion and make it about your crusade
>> against the Jooz.
>
> You're worried about a potential speech infringement, and neglect the
> constitutional free speech you have already lost.

I haven't neglected it. I've talked extensively about those laws in the
past. I'm just not talking about it (yet again) here. Your problem is that
you want it to be the *only* thing anyone talks about.

> Why is that?

It's not. You're lying, because many of the times I've talked about those
laws have been in response to you and you know it.

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:44:47 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:03:19 AM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> >> chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 2:23:27 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>
> >>>> California has been toying with unconstitutional content moderation bills,
> >>>> and now New York has one as well. Senator Brad Hoylman -- who got his law
> >>>> degree from Harvard, where presumably they teach about the 1st Amendment --
> >>>> has proudly introduced a hellishly unconstitutional social media bill.
> >>>
> >>> Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the
> >>> following statement on legislation being considered by the Senate
> >>> tomorrow that would encourage states to deny contracts to individuals or
> >>> organizations boycotting Israel:
> >> That's not what we're talking about here, Mime.
> >>
> >> You don't get to hijack every discussion and make it about your crusade
> >> against the Jooz.
> >
> > You're worried about a potential speech infringement, and neglect the
> > constitutional free speech you have already lost.
> I haven't neglected it. I've talked extensively about those laws in the
> past. I'm just not talking about it (yet again) here. Your problem is that
> you want it to be the *only* thing anyone talks about.
>
> > Why is that?
>
> It's not. You're lying, because many of the times I've talked about those
> laws have been in response to you and you know it.

You started a thread here concerned about a proposal in 2 states that might limit what you can post on social media. Have you ever started a post about current law in 37 states that bans constitutionally protected free speech and prevents employment unless a signed statement is submitted in support of a foreign government ?

Why is that?

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:56:12 PM UTC-5, chromebook test wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:44:47 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> > chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:03:19 AM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> > >> chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 2:23:27 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> California has been toying with unconstitutional content moderation bills,
> > >>>> and now New York has one as well. Senator Brad Hoylman -- who got his law
> > >>>> degree from Harvard, where presumably they teach about the 1st Amendment --
> > >>>> has proudly introduced a hellishly unconstitutional social media bill.
> > >>>
> > >>> Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the
> > >>> following statement on legislation being considered by the Senate
> > >>> tomorrow that would encourage states to deny contracts to individuals or
> > >>> organizations boycotting Israel:
> > >> That's not what we're talking about here, Mime.
> > >>
> > >> You don't get to hijack every discussion and make it about your crusade
> > >> against the Jooz.
> > >
> > > You're worried about a potential speech infringement, and neglect the
> > > constitutional free speech you have already lost.
> > I haven't neglected it. I've talked extensively about those laws in the
> > past. I'm just not talking about it (yet again) here. Your problem is that
> > you want it to be the *only* thing anyone talks about.
> >
> > > Why is that?
> >
> > It's not. You're lying, because many of the times I've talked about those
> > laws have been in response to you and you know it.

> You started a thread here concerned about a proposal in 2 states that might limit what you can post on social media. Have you ever started a post about current law in 37 states that bans constitutionally protected free speech and prevents employment unless a signed statement is submitted in support of a foreign government ?

> Why is that?

Your government has been hijacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:States_Anti_BDS_laws.png

TAGS: and, you, are, complicit

chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:44:47 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
>> chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:03:19 AM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 2:23:27 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> California has been toying with unconstitutional content moderation bills,
>>>>>> and now New York has one as well. Senator Brad Hoylman -- who got his law
>>>>>> degree from Harvard, where presumably they teach about the 1st Amendment --
>>>>>> has proudly introduced a hellishly unconstitutional social media bill.
>>>>>
>>>>> Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the
>>>>> following statement on legislation being considered by the Senate
>>>>> tomorrow that would encourage states to deny contracts to individuals or
>>>>> organizations boycotting Israel:
>>>> That's not what we're talking about here, Mime.
>>>>
>>>> You don't get to hijack every discussion and make it about your crusade
>>>> against the Jooz.
>>>
>>> You're worried about a potential speech infringement, and neglect the
>>> constitutional free speech you have already lost.
>> I haven't neglected it. I've talked extensively about those laws in the
>> past. I'm just not talking about it (yet again) here. Your problem is that
>> you want it to be the *only* thing anyone talks about.
>>
>>> Why is that?
>>
>> It's not. You're lying, because many of the times I've talked about those
>> laws have been in response to you and you know it.
>
>
> You started a thread here concerned about a proposal in 2 states that
> might limit what you can post on social media. Have you ever started a
> post about current law in 37 states that bans constitutionally protected
> free speech and prevents employment unless a signed statement is
> submitted in support of a foreign government ?
>
> Why is that?

Because you've started dozens of them and hijacked dozens of other threads
(like this one) so there was no need for me to start one. I responded to
yours to say what I had to say about it.

You just want to keep saying the same things over and over and over again
and won't tolerate anyone talking about anything else other than your
obsessions.

chromebook test <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:56:12 PM UTC-5, chromebook test wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:44:47 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:03:19 AM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 2:23:27 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> California has been toying with unconstitutional content moderation bills,
>>>>>>> and now New York has one as well. Senator Brad Hoylman -- who got his law
>>>>>>> degree from Harvard, where presumably they teach about the 1st Amendment --
>>>>>>> has proudly introduced a hellishly unconstitutional social media bill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the
>>>>>> following statement on legislation being considered by the Senate
>>>>>> tomorrow that would encourage states to deny contracts to individuals or
>>>>>> organizations boycotting Israel:
>>>>> That's not what we're talking about here, Mime.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't get to hijack every discussion and make it about your crusade
>>>>> against the Jooz.
>>>>
>>>> You're worried about a potential speech infringement, and neglect the
>>>> constitutional free speech you have already lost.
>>> I haven't neglected it. I've talked extensively about those laws in the
>>> past. I'm just not talking about it (yet again) here. Your problem is that
>>> you want it to be the *only* thing anyone talks about.
>>>
>>>> Why is that?
>>>
>>> It's not. You're lying, because many of the times I've talked about those
>>> laws have been in response to you and you know it.
>
>> You started a thread here concerned about a proposal in 2 states that
>> might limit what you can post on social media. Have you ever started a
>> post about current law in 37 states that bans constitutionally protected
>> free speech and prevents employment unless a signed statement is
>> submitted in support of a foreign government ?
>
>> Why is that?

> you, are, complicit

Then so are you.

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:30:46 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:56:12 PM UTC-5, chromebook test wrote:
> >> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:44:47 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:03:19 AM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 2:23:27 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> California has been toying with unconstitutional content moderation bills,
> >>>>>>> and now New York has one as well. Senator Brad Hoylman -- who got his law
> >>>>>>> degree from Harvard, where presumably they teach about the 1st Amendment --
> >>>>>>> has proudly introduced a hellishly unconstitutional social media bill.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the
> >>>>>> following statement on legislation being considered by the Senate
> >>>>>> tomorrow that would encourage states to deny contracts to individuals or
> >>>>>> organizations boycotting Israel:
> >>>>> That's not what we're talking about here, Mime.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You don't get to hijack every discussion and make it about your crusade
> >>>>> against the Jooz.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're worried about a potential speech infringement, and neglect the
> >>>> constitutional free speech you have already lost.
> >>> I haven't neglected it. I've talked extensively about those laws in the
> >>> past. I'm just not talking about it (yet again) here. Your problem is that
> >>> you want it to be the *only* thing anyone talks about.
> >>>
> >>>> Why is that?
> >>>
> >>> It's not. You're lying, because many of the times I've talked about those
> >>> laws have been in response to you and you know it.
> >
> >> You started a thread here concerned about a proposal in 2 states that
> >> might limit what you can post on social media. Have you ever started a
> >> post about current law in 37 states that bans constitutionally protected
> >> free speech and prevents employment unless a signed statement is
> >> submitted in support of a foreign government ?

> >> Why is that?
> > you, are, complicit

> Then so are you.

We need a second opinion from a legal expert. Let's wait for kerman to chime in.

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:27:09 PM UTC-5, chromebook test wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:56:12 PM UTC-5, chromebook test wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:44:47 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> > > chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:03:19 AM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> > > >> chromebook test <chromiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 2:23:27 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:

> > > >>> Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the
> > > >>> following statement on legislation being considered by the Senate
> > > >>> tomorrow that would encourage states to deny contracts to individuals or
> > > >>> organizations boycotting Israel:

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=9D4663F1-5DDD-4691-A901-8B56A536238E

> > You started a thread here concerned about a proposal in 2 states that might limit what you can post on social media. Have you ever started a post about current law in 37 states that bans constitutionally protected free speech and prevents employment unless a signed statement is submitted in support of a foreign government ?

> Your government has ALREADY been hijacked.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:States_Anti_BDS_laws.png

The conclusion we draw from this quick review of public opinion is that if democracy fails in America, it will not be because a majority of Americans is demanding a non-democratic form of government.

It will be because an organized, purposeful minority seizes strategic positions within the system and subverts the substance of democracy while retaining its shell—while the majority isn’t well organized, or doesn’t care enough, to resist. As we show in a later section, the possibility that this will occur is far from remote.

Is democracy failing and putting our economic system at risk?
William A. Galston and Elaine Kamarck January 4, 2022