A Supreme Debate on Social Media w/ Carl Szabo & Adam Candeub
Feb 22, 2024
auto_awesome
Debate on upcoming Supreme Court cases regarding online free speech and state regulation of Big Tech. Insights on controversial content moderation by companies like Meta and Twitter. Discussion on Florida and Texas laws targeting political bias. Arguments from NetChoice and states representatives. Exploration of balancing free speech with regulation in the tech industry.
Debates on online speech highlight tensions between platform moderation and free speech principles.
Legislation in Texas and Florida seeks to prevent censorship on social media, sparking legal challenges.
Balancing viewpoint discrimination and content moderation poses challenges for online platforms and property rights.
Deep dives
Content Moderation and Online Speech Debate Intensifies
The podcast delves into the intensifying debate around online content moderation and censorship. With a focus on platforms like Meta, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok, the discussion centers on strong public opinions regarding what speech should be allowed, the power of tech companies over public discourse, and the constitutionality of laws addressing online speech. Examples from Texas and Florida highlight legislative efforts to prevent censorship on social media, leading to legal challenges and upcoming Supreme Court oral arguments.
Legal Implications of Content Moderation Policies
The episode explores the legal implications of content moderation policies, particularly in the context of viewpoint discrimination versus content neutrality. Arguments are made regarding the potential ramifications of upholding laws like HB 20 in Texas, which aims to restrict platforms from discriminating based on viewpoint. The discussion intersects with concerns about government coercion and the impact on free speech principles, drawing on parallels with common carrier concepts and property rights.
Challenges of Defining Common Carrier Status and Property Rights
The podcast navigates the complexities of defining common carrier status and property rights in the context of online platforms. The debate between viewpoint discrimination and content moderation policies is examined, highlighting the challenges of enforcing anti-discrimination provisions without infringing on property rights. The episode underscores the intricate balance between free speech, property ownership, and platform responsibilities in the evolving landscape of online content moderation.
Implications of Common Carrier Argument on First Amendment Rights
The podcast episode delves into the implications of considering social media platforms as common carriers and its impact on First Amendment rights. By examining legal cases and analogies, the speakers highlight that designating platforms as common carriers does not necessarily safeguard free speech. The discussion emphasizes the complexity of regulating platforms' content and the potential risks of ceding control to regulatory bodies.
Content Moderation, Liability, and First Amendment Protections
The episode addresses the nuances of content moderation, liability, and First Amendment protections in the online environment. It explores the interplay between section 230, free speech, and platform responsibility in curating content. The speakers analyze the potential consequences of regulatory decisions on online platforms and the balance between ensuring free expression and addressing harmful content.
In our inaugural live recording ofThe Dynamist, FAI hosted a debate on two upcoming Supreme Court cases, Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton. These cases could have major implications for online free speech and whether states can regulate the practices of Big Tech platforms.
Over the past ten years, the debate over how companies and governments deal with online speech has only intensified. Whether you call it content moderation or censorship, people have very strong opinions about how companies like Meta, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok moderate their platforms. Florida and Texas both passed laws in recent years aimed at cracking down on what they see as politically biased behavior by these companies. Florida Senate Bill 7072, among other provisions, imposes fines on companies who "deplatform" political candidates and news outlets. Texas House Bill 20 prohibits social media companies with 50 million or more active monthly users from discriminating against users based on their viewpoint.
On Feb 20, 2024, Evan moderated a debate at FAI’s office in Washington, DC. Arguing for NetChoice is Carl Szabo, Vice President & General Counsel of NetChoice, a trade association representing tech companies and the plaintiff in both cases. Arguing for the states is Adam Candeub, former Trump Administration official and Professor of Law at Michigan State University.
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode