Federal judge blocks the social media “censorship” law advocated by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis

A controversial law in Florida prohibits certain social media platforms from banning political candidates or “news businesses” from using their services, but it was blocked hours before the law went into effect. The law was largely seen as a response to conservative politicians and media censorship, and was the first of its kind to be signed.

“We are pleased that the court has postponed the effective date of the Florida law on July 1 to ensure that social media can remain family-friendly,” said Steve DelBianco, the president of the industry organization NetChoice, who sued to overturn the law. One of the plaintiffs, Said in a statement“The order protects private companies from the state requiring social media to publish user posts that violate its community standards.”

This legal Proposed by Governor Ron DeSantis In January, Shortly after the then President Trump was banned or suspended Multiple social media platforms — The most famous ones are Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube — which encouraged the uprising in the Capitol on January 6.The law was also introduced after years of groundlessness Conservative complaints Big tech companies unfairly moderated their remarks after Trump’s own failure Multi-pronged Article 230 is a federal law that allows online platforms to review user content in any way they see fit. However, research shows that platforms will not discriminate against conservative content.If there is, they will do completely opposite.

The Florida Republican-majority House of Representatives and Senate easily passed the “Stop Social Media Censorship Act.” DeSantis signed it into law in May and he celebrated the move on the same day social media platform He claimed that the censorship of conservative politicians was unfair, so it is necessary to enact such a law.

Among other things, the law will impose a fine of $250,000 on social media platforms that prohibit candidates for public office across the state, impose a fine of $25,000 on candidates for lower-level positions, and allow states and individuals to sue the platform if they believe they violate the law. In addition, any content of “you or about” candidates cannot be “shadow prohibited”, nor can it be hidden or prohibited from being viewed by other users. The law only applies to social media platforms that do business in the state (basically, have users in Florida) and have annual revenue of $100 million or at least 100 million monthly active users worldwide. Except for platforms owned by companies that also own theme parks in the state.

Many experts stated from the beginning that the legal basis of the law was unstable. Industry groups representing the large technology companies affected — NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) — Sue country The law was overturned a few days after DeSantis signed it, claiming that it violated the rights of the first and fourteenth amendments of these companies and allowed content review under section 230.

The plaintiff requested a preliminary injunction to prevent it from taking effect before the court ruled its constitutionality. The two sides debated their case before Federal Judge Robert Hinkle on June 28. Little effort At the hearing, he concealed his contempt for the law, calling it “improperly drafted” and questioning why it provided Exempt For companies operating theme parks in Florida, this is a seemingly naked attempt to give special treatment to the state’s largest tourist attractions, even though none of them have a social media platform with applicable laws.

So Dan Hinkel Agree to the plaintiff’s request Regarding the preliminary injunction, it was stated that the law is “striving to control social media providers that are considered too large and too free” and “not a legitimate government interest.” It is also discriminatory and may violate the First Amendment freedom of speech rights of large technology platforms because it does not apply to smaller platforms or any platforms owned by companies that own theme parks in Florida.

“Discrimination between speakers is often a manifestation of content discrimination,” Hinkel wrote. In other words, the law purportedly designed to prevent content discrimination may itself be implementing content discrimination.

In the end, the judge stated that the law “clearly” violated Article 230, which allowed the platform to review content, and stated that no state should enact laws that are inconsistent with Article 230.

The plaintiff is satisfied with this decision.

“This decision to uphold the Constitution and federal laws is encouraging and reiterates what we have been saying: Florida’s regulations are an extraordinary excess, designed to punish private companies because they believe they do not respect the government’s politics Ideology,” CCIA Chairman Matt Schruers (Matt Schruers) Said in a statement“The court’s ruling is a victory for Internet users and the First Amendment.”

Their case will now go through the legal system, but social media companies will not be affected by it during this period-unless, of course, the ban is successfully appealed by the state. The governor’s office told Recode that it plans to appeal “immediately” and is “disappointed” with the decision.

“As Judge Hinkle seemed to indicate at this week’s preliminary injunction hearing, the case will always be heard in the 11th Circuit, and the Court of Appeals will ultimately make its own decision on the legal conclusion,” DeSantis Press Secretary Christina Pushaw said. “Governor DeSantis continues to fight for freedom of speech and against discriminatory censorship by large technology companies.”

Regardless of what happens to DeSantis’ laws, he must shoot at large technology companies and repeat the unfounded claims that many in the Republican Party welcome—in the process, he is his expected president of 2024. The campaign gained political capital.