“There’s a thin line between disgusting and
offensive speech, and political speech you just
don’t like. People are blurring the lines,” says
Jerry Ellig, a professor at George Washington
University’s Regulatory Studies Center who was
a policy official at the Federal Trade Commission.
Companies operating social media platforms
have long enjoyed broad legal immunity
for posted content. Under the 1996
Communications Decency Act, they have a
legal shield for both for content they carry and
for removing postings they deem offensive.
Be it social media posts, uploaded videos, user
reviews of restaurants or doctors, or classified
ads — the shelter from lawsuits and prosecution
has been a tent pole of social networking, and
undoubtedly contributed to its growth.
But in the current climate of hostility toward
Big Tech, that legal protection is getting a
second look.
Legislation proposed last spring by Republican
Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, an outspoken
conservative critic, would require the
companies to prove to regulators that they’re
not using political bias to filter content.
Failing to secure a bias-free audit from the
government would mean a social media
platform loses its immunity from legal action.
It remains to be seen whether such a system
could pass muster under the First Amendment.
Hawley’s legislation drew pushback from
Michael Beckerman, who heads the major trade
group Internet Association. He said it forces
the platforms “to make an impossible choice:
either host reprehensible, but First Amendment-
protected speech, or lose legal protections that