New York Federal Judge Andrew Carter Jr. has deemed New York’s “Hateful Conduct Law” illegal in a huge victory for free expression. Judge Carter backed Rumble, a free speech-friendly video site, and Eugene Volokh, a pro-liberty legal blogger. The decision of the judge is based on the First Amendment, which protects citizens from having their speech restricted by the government.
According to Judge Carter, “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.” He continued by stating that the law goes against the country’s “national commitment to the free expression of speech, even where that speech is offensive or repugnant.”
Judge Carter stated that the law was meant to illegally control speech and compel social media networks to police their users’ speech. He stated that “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.”
The judge also questioned the law’s ambiguity, pointing out that “For example, could a post using the hashtag ‘BlackLivesMatter’ or ‘BlueLivesMatter’ be considered ‘hateful conduct’ under the law? Likewise, could social media posts expressing anti-American views be considered conduct that humiliates or vilifies a group based on national origin?”
The “Hateful Conduct Law” was introduced by Hochul, who stated, “And in the state of New York, we’re now requiring social media networks to monitor and report hateful conduct on their platforms.”
In response to the decision, FIRE attorney Jay Diaz stated, “For decades, courts have been very clear: States cannot burden the free exchange of ideas, regardless of the ideas’ perceived morality or merit. What happened in Buffalo broke the nation’s heart, and we are thankful that the killer is being brought to justice. But, as the court recognized, violating expressive rights online won’t make us safer.”
Likewise, FIRE attorney David Ortner stated, “New York’s vague and overbroad law sought to stifle robust debate on the internet. Today’s decision is a victory for the First Amendment that should be celebrated by everyone who hopes to see the internet continue as a place where even difficult and contentious issues can be debated and discussed freely.”
