Op-Ed: State bills won’t solve political censorship, but they will create other problems

With lawmakers across the nation introducing legislation to change the practices of tech companies, the battle over social media and online speech has come to the states. Though they often have slight differences, the basis of the various state proposals is forcing companies to keep up user accounts and content while minimizing the use of artificial intelligence to display or remove content. Prominent examples include legislation introduced in Oklahoma and Kentucky that would fine companies that censor political or religious speech to the tune of $75,000 per deletion.

Such legislation has not typically been the prerogative of conservative lawmakers. These proposals put government directly in the center of how certain businesses must be run rather than letting consumers decide what platforms they want to spend their time on.

These bills also violate another tenant of conservative principles – federalism. This principle is often misunderstood as the lowest level of government addressing a problem. Correctly understood, it’s the proper level of government addressing a specific issue. Local governments shouldn’t be in charge of national defense, for example. For issues involving internet companies that are interstate, the federal government is often the proper level to address them. Otherwise, states like California end up passing laws that affect consumers in all 50 states.

Adding to the problems is the important fact that all of these proposals likely violate the First Amendment since they involve government dictating to private entities what speech they are forced to carry. If the same standards in these bills applied to news websites, it becomes immediately obvious that First Amendment protections are likely violated.

But even putting aside long=standing conservative principles and constitutional issues, if the legislation was enacted, would it actually solve the problem lawmakers are trying to address?

While legislators no doubt have companies like Twitter in mind when writing this legislation, their definition of what constitutes a social media company is far more engrossing. Platforms like Twitch, which hosts streams of people playing video games and allowing viewers to interact in a live chat section, would also be affected. The same goes for Reddit, a website that allows for “subreddits,” or communities based around a single subject.

These websites function by empowering those hosting the subreddit or stream to moderate the content as they deem fit. Run the New Orleans Saints subreddit and want to ban annoying Atlanta Falcons fans? Not a problem. Want to stop a commenter from spamming “Vermin Supreme 2024” while you are streaming Fortnite? Your stream, your rules.

But many of these proposals would force every channel operator or part-time moderator to determine if any one of their moderating decisions would run afoul of a state law and potentially incur large fines. Websites that host user-generated content, the very thing that makes the internet the powerful tool it is today, would be forced into two terrible choices.

They could either stop creators and moderators from having control over their own space, allowing spam and speech containing profanity and racial slurs to explode. Or, they could only allow far fewer content creators on websites, limiting the very kind diverse content and interaction people go online to enjoy.

Herein lies the heart of the proposals to rein in tech platforms in the defense of free speech. Speech flourishes online when private organizations and groups can set the rules for discussion. Forcing websites into an all-or-nothing approach will silence the very kind of voices and discourse they set out to promote.

Lawmakers may be rightly worried about a free speech culture and the ability of certain companies to silence voices, but government intervention fails to solve the problem. These state legislative proposals not only violate important conservative principles of co-opting private businesses for political expediency, but they also fail in what they aim to achieve. The internet that allows for so many people to reach an audience and express themselves will either cease as we know it today, or it will be quickly overrun by spam and other vile content.

If the point of these bills is to try to punish or scare Silicon Valley, they might succeed. But if lawmakers are interested in having an open internet where users can actually hear conservative voices, this approach will certainly fail.

Disclaimer: This content is distributed by The Center Square