Nick: Late yesterday, the
supreme court blocked Texas from
instituting a new law that would
prevent social media networks
from blocking users over their
point of view.
>> They say it's censorship over
religious views.
An appeals court blocked a
similar Florida law from taking
effect while it's being
challenged.
The key legal question is
whether the platforms are like
phone companies or cable
companies as Texas and Florida
lawmakers argue and are subject
to regulation or as the industry
argues are they like publishers,
protected by the first
amendment.
Two perspectives.
Carl cey beau and general
manager -- general counsel of
net choice, the trade
association challenging the
Texas and Florida laws.
He teaches internet law at the
George Maison university law
school.
-- George mason university law
school and Adam candeub who
directs the law program at
Michigan state university.
Mr. Candeub I'd ride to -- I'd
like to start with you.
I want to get to the legal issue
later.
But first, explain why this law,
these laws are good ideas.
Why are they necessary?
Adam: I think a lot of Americans
fear that certain groups,
certain people with certain
perspectives are being shut out
of the public square which is
what the supreme court terms the
internet.
The social media platforms are
the place where we discuss
politics, where we meet our
friends.
Where politicians talk to
voters.
And if we have a thumb on the
scale so that only certain
viewpoints get promoted, that's
undermining a central problem in
our society -- a central prop of
our society, democratic
participation.
>> What's your response, Carl?
Is there a thumb on the scale?
Carl: What we're talk about is
simple.
It's about government, in this
case Republican government,
forcing a private platform to
say something it doesn't want to
It would be like the government
going in to which I poet Lee and
telling them they have to serve
hamburgers because people want
hamburgers and of course that's
absurd.
It's a simple issue.
Do we want in this case the
Republican states of Texas and
Florida to be able to tell
private businesses that they
have to host content they don't
want, and we're not just talking
political content.
We're talking about lawful but
awful content.
Stuff like terrorist speech,
terrorist recruitment, child
grooming, a shooter's manifesto
would have to be ride to be
allowed on these platforms under
these laws.
There's a reason why net choice
is fighting against these.
It's because of the first
amendment protects every person,
every business, from this type
of government compelled speech
and it doesn't matter if you are
a cable company or an I.S.P.
Because the supreme court says
even they are guaranteed these
first amendment protections and
not have to carry speech they
don't want to carry.
So really it's a simple issue.
Last reason why we've had two
district court judges, four
circuit court judges and at
least five U.S. Supreme court
justices side with us every step
of the way.
>> Adam what about that argument
that this would require social
media platforms to distribute
terror speeches as Mr. Szabo
says? Adam: This is a
mischaracterization of the law.
The law clear that platforms are
free to censor dangerous
content.
They can censor, get rid of all
sorts of undesirable content
like nudity.
What they can't do is censor
whole viewpoints.
They can say no nudity on the
platform but they can't censor
me if I want to be an advocate
of the naturist lifestyle.
Get back to Mr. Szabo's point,
that's absurd.
The government requires
businesses to host speech that
they don't like in all sorts of
instances.
This television program is a
good example.
Local television broadcasters
can compel cable systems to
carry their channels and their
programs.
And the supreme court has
upheldthis.
The supreme -- the supreme court
and other courts have upheld the
obligation of telephone
companies to carry on their
wires views they don't like.
Similarly in the network you
centrality regulation, the
U.S. -- Court of appeals for the
district of Columbia said
I.s.p.'s must carry
indiscriminately all sorts of
messages.
This is just -- this is smoke
and mirrors saying private
businesses have some sort of
first amendment expressive right
to exclude people.
Restaurants don't have the
expressive right to exclude
black people or jewish people
from their restaurants.
Because they want to make a
point.
Similarly the platforms which
are -- again are the supreme
court has called our public
square can't exclude people they
don't like to make some obscure,
not quite clear expressive
point.
>> Mr. Can tube, I want to make
sure I understand.
Under these law, the platforms
could still set a code of
conduct, a standard?
Adam: Of course they could.
If you look at the law, I
welcome your viewers to go on
the internet and look up h.b.20
passed by the state of Texas,
the statute says look, it only
goes to viewpoint.
It doesn't go to content.
It allows the platforms to
censor types of speech that the
government allows -- already
allows them to do which under
section 230 would include
obscenity, indecent time of
speech, nudity, excessively
violent content.
And it's very disturbing that
net choice is making this claim.
They put this claims in their
papers to the supreme court that
underscores justice Ali to's
dissent should not have been
made in this context.
Because with these false claim,
they can't really have a proper
and clear hearing of the issues.
>> What's the argue for why
social media platforms should
have first amendment protection?
Carl: It's incredibly simple.
They're a private business.
Mr. Candeub and others support
cases like hobby lobby and
citizen united that were
predicated on the notion that
private businesses are private
businesses and can decide what's
best for users and customers.
We have cases like turner which
is about turner broadcast cable
which says that even cable
companies who the district
circuit court decides are common
carriers, are able to
discriminate on what type of
content is or is not allowed.
The notion of we're just
throwing a bunch of spaghetti at
the wall and it's smoke and
mirror, we must be really good
at it.
We've convinced four circuit
court judges, all of whom are
conservatives that we're right.
We convinced at least five U.S.
Supreme court justices that
we're right.
And once again, this is a really
simple issue that a lot of
people try to make much more
complicated.
If I were to go into which I
poet Lee and start flipping over -- into chipotle and
started flipping over table, we
wouldn't blink an eye if they
ask me to leave because I was
violating rules.
What we're seeing in these two
laws, that's being forbidden.
And it's forbidding our ability
to speak freely, to moderate
content how we want, to decide
how to promote content we want.
>> I want to -- I'm sorry, I'm
going to interrupt you.
I want Mr. Candeub to respond to
that.
We have a very little amount of
time left.
Adam: Sure.
The social media company texas
are about connecting people to
people.
They are about the expression of
their users.
Nobody goes on to the social
media platforms to hear what,
you know, Zuckerberg feels about
their kids' pictures.
It's about communicating.
Like the telephone company they
have an obligation to serve all.
Mr. S disprvetion Abo says it's
like chip torvetion LE.
They can't say you can't come
eat ourfood because you're black
or because we dent like your
political point of view.
>> I'm sorry to interrupt but we
have to leave it there Adam
candeub of the Michigan state
university law school and Carl
Szabo of netchoice and Michigan
university law school.