By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell book
BBC - Honduras - CIA Trial book - NY Mag
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Dec 19 – The New York State law enacted after the Buffalo shooting has been challenged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where oral arguments were held on December 19. Inner City Press live tweeted, here:
challenge to NYS "online hate speech law" by Rumble, before SDNY Judge Andrew L. Carter
Judge Carter: Would it be sufficient for plaintiff to put in its website that yes we take complaints, but we may or may not respond? Or an automated response, that "We may consider it"?
Plaintiff: The statute requires a clear policy of how they will respond...
Plaintiff: Sites are going to feel the burden and pressure to take the content down. In subsection 4 it says what they may be held liable for - so sites will think they must respond or be investigated and fined by the Attorney General.
Plaintiff: Gov Hochul said, The AG will be pursuing it to the fullest power she's been given. So it chills protected activity. Judge Carter: Defendant, can you address the title of the law? It claims it would prohibit hateful conduct.
Defense: 394ccc, You're right Defense: We are not regulating speech... Website operators may have a different definition of hateful conduct, they're welcome to have any policy they want. So, the possibility of no response complies with this law.
Judge: But this law targets a category of speech Judge: This law targets speech the "vilifies or humiliates." But that's protected by the 1st Amendment.
Defense: Unless it's incitement to violence, or fighting words. It's largely a procedural statute- they have to set up a mechanism, they don't have to read them Judge: But the statute only requires a mechanism for some time of complaints - not, for example, complaints against movie directors.
Plaintiff: This law would cover tweets by The Onion - that is, parody and satire. Judge: What about standing?
Plaintiff: The AG's report specifically mentions Rumble. They are being targeted.
Defense: In the Buffalo shooting, Twitch took down the stream in 3 minutes, shorter than in New Zealand.
The case is Volokh et al v. James, 22-cv-10195 (Carter)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
