A controversial legislative package signed by New York Governor Kathy Hochul is likely to once again ignite concerns over free speech; as critics argue – just like the last time she tried to enact such legislation – it promotes censorship under the guise of online safety. Among the measures is S895B/A6789B, a bill mandating social media companies disclose their terms of service regarding so-called “hate speech” and submit detailed reports to the state attorney general.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
In a press release, Hochul’s office borrowed a turn from the pro-censorship UK government and touted the legislation as a step toward “Online Safety,” but many see it as a tool for stifling expression. The term “hate speech,” often deployed in ambiguous and subjective ways, has frequently been used to suppress dissenting opinions. This bill empowers both government entities and social media giants to arbitrarily regulate speech.
Assemblymember Grace Lee (D-District 65), a vocal proponent of the legislation, justified the measures by citing the spread of information during the COVID-19 pandemic. She argued that “hate and disinformation” were spreading like “wildfire,” necessitating stricter controls.
Lee further criticized Big Tech for failing to adequately police content, stating, “These companies have a responsibility to protect users from this hate, but have failed to do so.”
Similarly, NY State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal (D-District 47) framed his support for the bill in language emphasizing identity-based violence and discrimination. Hoylman-Sigal asserted that social media companies must act to prevent the spread of “disinformation and hate-fueled violence.”
He even pointed to the events of January 6, 2021, as evidence of the alleged dangers posed by unmoderated online speech, suggesting these platforms bear responsibility for addressing such issues.
Opponents of the legislation view these arguments as a pretext for imposing sweeping censorship measures. They argue that handing more control over speech to government officials and powerful corporations undermines fundamental freedoms.
Critics of this latest measure draw parallels to an earlier law championed by Hochul that was blocked by a federal court. The law, enacted last summer, sought to regulate “hateful conduct” online by requiring social media platforms to implement mechanisms for reporting content deemed “hateful.”
The broad definition of “hateful conduct,” which included content that could “vilify, humiliate, or incite violence” based on various identity categories, raised alarm among free speech advocates.
The legislation faced a legal challenge from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), free speech platform Rumble, and First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. of the Southern District of New York struck down the law, citing its chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.
“The First Amendment protects from state regulation speech that may be deemed ‘hateful,’ and generally disfavors regulation of speech based on its content unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest,” the court ruled. It further emphasized that the law compelled social media networks to adopt speech policies aligned with the state’s definitions, violating their editorial discretion and the First Amendment.
