Table of Contents
VICTORY: After FIRElawsuit, court halts New York鈥檚 misguided law targeting online speech

Represented by 果冻传媒app官方, blogger and constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh is challenging a New York state law that would force him to police speech. (Tritton Productions)
NEW YORK, N.Y., Feb. 15, 2023 鈥 On Tuesday, a federal court halted enforcement of a misguided New York law that forces websites and apps to address online speech that someone, somewhere, finds humiliating or vilifying. The court ruling means that New York cannot legally force blogs and other internet platforms to adopt its preferred definition of hate speech or be drafted into New York鈥檚 鈥渟peech police.鈥
Represented by the 果冻传媒app官方, constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh and online platforms Rumble and Locals sued New York Attorney General Letitia James on Dec. 1 to stop the State from trying to control speech on a large swath of the internet. Volokh is a First Amendment expert with a popular legal blog, 鈥,鈥 and Rumble and Locals are, respectively, a video platform similar to YouTube and a community-building platform that allows creators to connect directly with their audience. All are known for their commitment to free speech.
New York鈥檚 was passed after last May鈥檚 tragic mass shooting by a white supremacist at a supermarket in Buffalo. FIREargued that the law compelled all manner of websites 鈥 from blogs to social media platforms 鈥 to parrot the state鈥檚 message. It also chilled online discourse, stifling the constitutionally protected speech of platforms and users alike.
鈥淣ew York tried to single out particular ideological viewpoints by requiring me and other platform operators to have policies for dealing with those viewpoints,鈥 said plaintiff Eugene Volokh. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 just as unconstitutional as the government targeting 鈥榰npatriotic鈥 speech or anti-police speech or whatever else. I鈥檓 grateful that this decision makes clear that such viewpoint-based attempts at government regulation are unconstitutional.鈥
In issuing the preliminary injunction, Judge Andrew Carter of the Southern District of New York explained that the law unconstitutionally requires social media networks to disseminate the state鈥檚 message about the definition of hate speech, 鈥渁 fraught and heavily debated topic.鈥 Regulation of hate speech is 鈥減articularly onerous for Plaintiffs, whose websites 鈥榟ave dedicated pro-free speech purpose[s].鈥欌 Because the law 鈥渋s clearly aimed at regulating speech,鈥 Judge Carter ruled, it 鈥渃hills the constitutionally protected speech of social media users鈥 in violation of the First Amendment.
Judge Carter also recognized that the law鈥檚 vague terms, such as 鈥渧ilify鈥 and 鈥渉umiliate,鈥 chill protected speech: 鈥淔or example, could a post using the hashtag 鈥楤lackLivesMatter鈥 or 鈥楤lueLivesMatter鈥 be considered 鈥榟ateful conduct鈥 under the law? Likewise, could social media posts expressing anti-American views be considered conduct that humiliates or vilifies a group based on national origin?鈥 Such a chilling effect is unacceptable 鈥淸i]n the face of our national commitment to the free expression of speech, even where that speech is offensive or repugnant.鈥
鈥淔or decades, courts have been very clear: States cannot burden the free exchange of ideas, regardless of the ideas鈥 perceived morality or merit,鈥 said FIREattorney Jay Diaz. 鈥淲hat happened in Buffalo broke the nation鈥檚 heart, and we are thankful that the killer is being brought to justice. But, as the court recognized, violating expressive rights online won鈥檛 make us safer.鈥
The New York law ensnared bloggers, commenters, websites, and apps around the country due to its broad definition of 鈥渟ocial media networks鈥 as for-profit 鈥渟ervice providers鈥 that 鈥渆nable users to share any content.鈥 This vague wording meant the law could impact virtually any revenue-generating website that allows comments or posts and is accessible to New Yorkers.
COURTESY PHOTOS OF PLAINTIFF EUGENE VOLOKH
鈥淣ew York鈥檚 vague and overbroad law sought to stifle robust debate on the internet,鈥 said FIREattorney Daniel Ortner. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision is a victory for the First Amendment that should be celebrated by everyone who hopes to see the internet continue as a place where even difficult and contentious issues can be debated and discussed freely.鈥
The FIRE(果冻传媒app官方) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought 鈥 the most essential qualities of liberty. FIREeducates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
CONTACT:
Katie Kortepeter, Communications Campaign Manager, 果冻传媒app官方: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org
Recent Articles
FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

鈥業 hate freedom of opinion鈥 meme leads to sentencing in German court

Revoking Harvard鈥檚 tax-exempt status will threaten all nonprofits

Grandpa鈥檚 advice for the new wave of American censors
