LinkedIn removed a post analyzing potential COVID-19 vaccine effects on female fertility, highlighting the growing tension between Big Tech censorship and free speech in America’s digital public square.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court recently sent cases challenging Texas and Florida social media laws back to lower courts for First Amendment analysis
- LinkedIn and other platforms can remove content without providing specific reasons, operating with minimal accountability
- Big Tech companies control what many call “the modern public square” while enjoying Section 230 legal protections
- Government attempts to regulate content moderation face complex constitutional questions about free speech rights
Big Tech’s Censorship Powers: A Personal Experience
The frustration of being silenced on social media platforms echoes Howard Beale’s famous outburst from the 1976 film “Network.” Many Americans have experienced a similar sentiment when facing unexplained content removal by tech giants. In my case, LinkedIn recently removed my post that shared Nicolas Hulscher’s analysis about potential negative effects of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines on women’s reproductive health. The platform labeled it “false or misleading” without identifying specific content issues or offering substantive explanation for the removal.
This experience highlights a troubling reality: social media platforms can act as judge, jury, and executioner of content without providing users meaningful recourse or due process. When companies like LinkedIn make unilateral decisions about what information can be shared, they effectively control critical aspects of public discourse in America today.
The Constitutional Battle Over Online Speech
The tension between platform autonomy and government regulation reached the Supreme Court recently with cases challenging laws from Texas and Florida. These laws attempted to prevent social media companies from blocking or limiting content based on political viewpoints. The Court sent these cases back to lower courts for further First Amendment analysis, signaling the complex constitutional questions at stake.
The Florida law sought to prevent platforms from banning political candidates or restricting posts about them, while Texas enacted HB20, prohibiting dominant social media companies from engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination. Both laws reflect growing concern about Big Tech’s influence over public discourse and the potential for ideological bias in content moderation.
I had to lose the battle to win the Big Tech war (must read*)
Since its enactment in 1996, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has been instrumental in shaping the internet—but not in the way it was intended. The law was designed to shield social media platforms from…
— Jason Fyk (@JasonFyk) October 7, 2024
Social Media: The Modern Public Square?
The Supreme Court previously described social media as “the modern public square,” acknowledging these platforms’ central role in contemporary American life. Unlike traditional media outlets that create content, social media companies primarily serve as conduits for user speech. This distinction forms the basis for arguments that these platforms should face different regulatory standards than newspapers or broadcasters.
FCC Commissioners have expressed concern that Big Tech’s position threatens free speech while contradicting established communications regulatory frameworks. They argue that platforms’ market power and centrality to public discourse justify some government oversight, particularly regarding viewpoint discrimination. This position directly challenges platforms’ claims to absolute First Amendment protection for their content moderation decisions.
Section 230 and the Accountability Gap
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides crucial legal immunity to platforms for most content moderation decisions. This protection creates a significant accountability gap: platforms can remove constitutionally protected speech without legal consequences or requirements to provide due process to affected users. Critics argue this arrangement grants tech companies unprecedented power over public discourse without corresponding responsibility.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision emphasizes that government cannot compel private platforms to host or promote speech against their preferences. However, it also acknowledges legitimate concerns about platforms’ impact on public discourse. This balancing act between platform autonomy and the public interest in robust debate remains unresolved, leaving both users and policymakers searching for appropriate solutions to address unexplained content removals and perceived viewpoint discrimination.
