It is fortunate this week’s editor’s column is limited in space, as this editor is also limited on opinion... At least for now. Give me a few days to digest the nearly 100 pages of Supreme Court opinion about tech companies and state legislators’ battle for ownership of your speech, and I’m sure one will come to me. For now, however, I am pleased that we celebrated what our leaders did in 1776 and not... anything in the last few decades and certainly not in the last few days.
In March, I briefly editorialized commentary as the U.S. Supreme Court began reviewing cases between “Big Tech” companies and the Texas and Florida legislators. On February 26, the Court heard oral arguments in NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, one of two cases challenging Texas and Florida laws that restrict how social media companies moderate user content.
I wrote then how I felt these cases had the potential to be some of the most important in recent history. While I stand by the analysis that the topic of debate is of great importance, SCOTUS’s decision to avoid making decisions looks more like the actions of seven school board members I know than nine wise justices.
In fairness, what the court decided was that the lower courts simply didn’t do an effective job of hearing the case and there was still much for states to iron out. I am curious to see how that was articulated within those 96 pages, as even in my skimming of the document I noticed a good deal of fancy words.
Before they were justices, they were lawyers, and if I have learned nothing else from my interactions with attorneys: ‘How’ they tell you “No” can tell you a lot about what they are really saying. That is why legal documents convey in 20 pages what could be contained in two. It takes many more lines to say what you mean when all that you mean is written between them.
If I had only a single action to encourage, it would be to write letters, email, or call your state legislators. Write emails to social media sites, or better yet, post your thoughts about companies or the government censoring your speech.
Information and the ability to freely exchange it is one of the key ingredients that make our nation strong, and that right should not be infringed upon. But it will be, if you allow it.
Tech companies say they are like newspapers, as they are publishers of content. Others claim they operate more like a telephone company, being a provider of a communication network.
Comparing social media to newspapers is like comparing instruction manuals to comic books because both have pictures and brief sentence structures. Social media sites have no accountability beyond their own ethics, which works because they can’t be sued for libel. They don’t publish corrections because when it comes to content control, they are the publishers, when it comes to accountability, their users are.
It seems to me that social media platforms are more like telephone poles than telephone companies.
They are a place where you can ask about your lost dog, find a guitar player, sell a couch, or make a political statement.
Nowadays, if someone doesn’t care about your dog, hates your band, thinks you should keep your couch, or disagrees with your opinion, “Big Tech” and “The Government” are fighting over who gets to pull down your digital sign. Good thing your opinion is still welcome and ad space available in the analog version of your local newspaper.