Why the Government Should Not Regulate Content Moderation of Social Media

from The Gray Area:

Trump can’t change the date, but voting by mail needs to be cleaned up.

With social media companies testifying before Congress yesterday, the media and social media networks were ablaze today with comments on free speech and censorship.

As this article below from the CATO Institute states, the social media censorship of right wing political commentary is wrong ... but not illegal. A hard, but important, constitutional lesson.

However, that is not the only remedy available in this constitutional republic.

During the turn of the last century, major corporations were controlling enterprise through their industries, and through their enormous wealth, much else in society. As a result, anti-trust laws were instituted to break up those monopolies for the good of the people.

That tool applies perfectly to the social media monopolies today. Congress has previously given these social media companies immunity from prosecution for speech violations on their platforms. Therefore, why would they have to censor speech on their networks? But, they do.

Diverse access to information would eliminate one entrepreneur, hiding behind a corporate veil, from individually censoring speech on their monopolistic platform.

from CATO Institute,

American law and culture strongly circumscribe government power to regulate speech on the internet and elsewhere. Regulations of social media companies might either indirectly restrict individual speech or directly limit a right to curate an internet platform. The First Amendment offers strong protections against such restrictions. Congress has offered additional protections to tech companies by freeing them from most intermediary liability for speech that appears on their platforms. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that private companies in general are not bound by the First Amendment.

More From CATO Instittute:

365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )