蜜柚直播

The rule would require Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok to offer third-party content moderators to their users, essentially allowing outside companies to police what gets said on the sites. Attorney General Andrew Bailey says he is trying to combat corporate censorship online.

But two 蜜柚直播 attorneys predict Bailey鈥檚 regulation would be struck down in court. The U.S. Supreme Court weighed similar laws in Florida and Texas last year, sending challenges to both laws back to lower courts for further action.

鈥淚 have no doubt that the court would hold that what Bailey is trying to do violates the First Amendment,鈥� said Gregory Magarian, a law professor at Washington University.

Magarian said the court last year 鈥渆ssentially said it was going to treat social media platforms in the same way as newspapers,鈥� which have editorial autonomy.

And David Roland, director of litigation for the Freedom Center of 蜜柚直播, a libertarian group promoting open records and free speech, said the Supreme Court said the 鈥済overnment doesn鈥檛 get to dictate to them how they鈥檙e going to host speech鈥� on their platforms.

James Lawson, a spokesperson for Bailey鈥檚 office, said the proposal is a draft and that the rulemaking process 鈥渁llows for significant stakeholder and public input,鈥� signaling the office would consider revisions.

He also said the proposal follows the path laid out by the Supreme Court in the case in question.

鈥淚t has been well documented that big tech social media platforms have time and again suppressed and censored speech which did not fit their agenda,鈥� Lawson said. 鈥淭his rule puts the controls back into the hands of users to protect both speech and consumer choice.鈥�

Bailey鈥檚 proposal covers social media platforms with at least 50 million distinct daily users in the United States per calendar month. The attorney general鈥檚 office said only Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok currently meet the definition.

Under the rule, the social media platforms would need to offer new users the option to choose an alternative moderator, from outside of their companies, and would need to ask again at least every six months.

The companies currently have internal moderators.

Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, declined to comment for this story. Neither YouTube nor TikTok responded to requests for comment.

Social media companies sue Florida, Texas

Bailey鈥檚 move is the latest salvo in a conservative offensive against large social media companies, which Republicans have for years accused of bias against them.

and 鈥� laws regulating social media content moderation both followed President Donald Trump鈥檚 suspension from Facebook and Twitter after the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol.

Republicans have also accused platforms of suppressing certain content.

Last year, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg that the Biden administration 鈥渞epeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content,鈥� including what the White House called misinformation about the coronavirus and vaccines, Reuters reported then.

In the Supreme Court case, NetChoice v. Moody, trade group NetChoice 鈥� whose roster of clients includes Meta, YouTube and X 鈥� sued Florida and Texas to overturn the content moderation laws.

The Supreme Court鈥檚 decision last year was viewed as a win for the social media companies and free-speech advocates.

In , the majority said the court had repeatedly 鈥渂arred the government from forcing a private speaker鈥� to present views it opposed.

The Texas law barred social media companies from censoring users鈥� viewpoints; the Florida law made it illegal for the companies to 鈥渄eplatform鈥� candidates for office 鈥� removing or suspending candidate accounts 鈥� with fines of $250,000 per day allowed for candidates for statewide office.

Bailey takes a more indirect approach to regulating the platforms by only requiring that alternative moderation services be offered to users.

鈥淲hat Texas and Florida basically did was to try to say ... Facebook, you can鈥檛 do content moderation,鈥� Magarian said. 鈥淭he Supreme Court essentially is telling those states you can鈥檛 do that. You can鈥檛 stop the platforms from making editorial decisions.鈥�

Magarian said Bailey can credibly claim he鈥檚 taking a different approach than the two states by not telling the social media platforms anything about what they can and can鈥檛 publish.

But the outside content moderator, Magarian said, forces the companies to essentially promote access to content the companies aren鈥檛 interested in promoting.

NetChoice tunes into 蜜柚直播

Bailey is also citing the Supreme Court opinion to make his case.

His office said the court made clear that 鈥渋t is critically important鈥� for citizens to have access to information from many sources.

鈥淭hat is the whole project of the First Amendment,鈥� the opinion said.

The court said governments can 鈥減rotect that access鈥� by enforcing competition laws, Bailey鈥檚 office said.

His office said an enormous and increasing proportion of speech occurs on social media, and 鈥渘early all of that speech is subject to complete control by a small handful of powerful actors.鈥�

Bailey鈥檚 rule blocks the social media companies from controlling content moderation.

But Roland said Bailey鈥檚 office omitted language from the same ruling that was detrimental to his case.

In the paragraph Bailey quotes from, the court referred to 鈥� a 1974 opinion that struck down a Florida law forcing newspapers to provide a 鈥渞ight to reply鈥� to political candidates.

鈥淗owever imperfect the private marketplace of ideas,鈥� the court said, 鈥渉ere was a worse proposal 鈥� the government itself deciding when speech was imbalanced, and then coercing speakers to provide more of some views or less of others.鈥�

Roland predicted Bailey鈥檚 rule, if it takes effect, will be 鈥渄ead policy walking.鈥�

And NetChoice is now paying attention to the proposed 蜜柚直播 regulation.

A spokesperson for NetChoice said recently that the group would file comments on Bailey鈥檚 plan as part of a public comment period that ends July 16.