Judge Byron R. White, who was often hostile to the press, agreed that unregulated and unmanageable coverage was superior to alternatives to government control.
“Of course, the media is not always accurate, not even responsible, and may not offer a complete and fair debate on important public issues,” he writes. “But the balance struck by the First Amendment on the media is that society must take the risk that occasional discussions on important issues are not comprehensive and may not represent all perspectives. is.”
Within two weeks, Judge Robert L. Hinkle of the Federal District Court in Tallahassee blocked. Another Florida law, This was enacted in May and was energized by some of the same ideas rejected by the Supreme Court in 1974. The law imposes fines on several social media platforms to exercise editorial decisions that refuse to amplify the views of politicians who violate the standards. ..
To statement Issued when he issued Signed the billRepublican Governor Ron DeSantis said the point of the law was to promote a conservative view. “If Big Tech censors enforce inconsistent rules and discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held liable,” he said.
Judge Hinkle quoted Tornillo’s decision, but wrote that there are significant differences between newspapers and platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
“Newspapers, unlike social media providers, create or select all content, including editorials and letters to the editor,” he writes. In contrast, he writes, “Much more than 99% of the content posted on social media sites will not be reviewed anymore.”
However, the new law, written by Judge Hinkle, targeted “idealistically sensitive cases,” in which the platform uses its discretion, similar to newspapers.
Trump proceedings against Facebook, YouTube and Twitter face first amendment hurdles
Source link Trump proceedings against Facebook, YouTube and Twitter face first amendment hurdles