[ad_1]
Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to the media Wednesday, Jan. 12, 2022, at the mobile testing site in Paramount Park.
David Crane | Los Angeles Times | Getty Images
NetChoice, a technology industry group that includes Amazon, Google, MetaTikTok and Twitter announced Wednesday that they are suing California to block a new age-appropriate design code law that violates the First Amendment.
A model outside of standards in the UK, the California law aims to establish laws that make the internet safer for children. It requires minors to have maximum privacy settings turned on by default and says online services targeting children under 18 must assess the harm to users from potentially harmful messages or exploitation.
The lawsuit includes court cases involving the right to free expression on the Internet. Legislators are in many cases trying to weaken the broad liability protections that online forums enjoy for content moderation efforts and their users’ posts.
Concerns over privacy and eavesdropping are across party lines, though Republicans and Democrats still disagree on how they should be handled. While California’s law was passed by a majority of Democratic lawmakers, NetChoice has sued both Texas and Florida over their social media laws, which were passed by Republican-majority lawmakers. Those bills seek to hold tech platforms accountable for removing posts based on political views.
Instead of defending California’s claims that the new law harms minors, NetChoices in California also infringes on free speech rights and violates First Amendment rights by forcing companies to guess the meaning of “naturally occurring words” from consumers.
“Governments are empowered to impose significant fines” if the companies get it wrong, the group said. “The state may also impose such penalties if companies fail to enforce their content requirements to the satisfaction of the Attorney General.”
The NetChoice Act, which is set to take effect in July 2024, says it will “put greater pressure on moderate content to avoid legal penalties for content that the state deems harmful.” “Excessive,” the group says, “provides valuable resources, especially for vulnerable youth who rely on the Internet for life-saving information.”
A representative from California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office defended the law in an emailed statement.
The move “provides critical new protections for the collection and use of their information and works to address some of the real and proven harms associated with social media and other online products and services,” the statement said. “We are reviewing the complaint and look forward to defending this important child welfare law in court.”
The language in the lawsuit echoes concerns raised by various civil society groups opposing the federal bipartisan rule, which seeks to provide some protections for children on the Internet. Those groups have warned that the rights of the LGBTQ community could be harmed, particularly by concerns that the parameters of content filters could be influenced by political preferences.
Lawmakers leading the federal law attempted to address some of those concerns in a new version released Tuesday night, though some Dissatisfaction They are left with the changes.
The Florida and Texas laws that NetChoice oppose are covered by the tech industry’s broad liability shield, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects the right to moderate content. Republicans have been trying to place more restrictions on social media companies, which they see as censoring conservative views on popular sites.
Major forums have repeatedly denied biased enforcement of community rules, and independent research has shown that conservative views dominate online discussions.
The Supreme Court blocked the Texas version in May, though it did not rule on the merits of the case, and the Florida version has so far been blocked by lower courts.
The Supreme Court may still choose to decide cases that have been challenged under both state laws. Meanwhile, he has announced that he will hear two separate cases next year that could undermine Section 230 protections.
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.
See: Lawmakers grill TikTok, YouTube, Snap executives
[ad_2]
Source link