Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law, has stated that while private companies are free to censor other private parties of their own accord, if the government forces a private company to engage in censorship, it becomes a violation of the First Amendment. Feldman made these remarks at a forum titled "Censorship, Content Moderation, and the First Amendment." His statement echoes concerns raised by advocacy groups regarding Utah's recently enacted Social Media Regulation Amendments.
Feldman emphasized the distinction between private parties censoring each other and the government compelling private companies to engage in censorship, according to Tech Policy Press.
"Private parties can stop other private parties from speaking, and they're not stopped by the First Amendment from doing so. But if the private party, the social media company, removes the speech of another private person and does so because the government made them do it, then at that point it becomes the government's speech act, and then it cannot lawfully be performed," Feldman said.
Feldman highlighted the importance of protecting freedom of speech and the potential implications of government interference in private companies' content moderation practices.
The concerns raised by advocacy groups over Utah's Social Media Regulation Amendments are rooted in similar worries about government overreach. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a non-profit civil liberties group, sent a letter to Utah Gov. Spencer Cox expressing opposition to SB 152, the legislation that introduced the amendments. In the letter, the EFF argued that the First Amendment ensures young people's right to information and highlighted the impact of the legislation on their access to educational resources.
According to the EFF, young people utilize the internet not only for social media but also for platforms like DuoLingo and StackOverflow, which provide opportunities to learn new languages and computer coding. The EFF warned that the implementation of SB 152 would result in young Utah residents being cut off from much of the internet, placing them at a disadvantage compared to youth in other states. The organization also emphasized that marginalized young people without supportive caregivers would face greater challenges as they would require parental consent to access internet resources.
Another concern raised by the EFF was the increased collection of young people's private data due to the age verification requirements of SB 152. The organization highlighted the potential infringement on young people's right to privacy, as the bill would grant parents access to all of their children's accounts and messages until the age of 18.
ConnectSafely, an internet safety nonprofit, also expressed apprehensions regarding the bill. The group's CEO noted that the legislation would require both children and adults to submit personal information, including government-issued identification and home addresses. This raised concerns about the security of the stored data and the potential risks of a database hack.
Despite these concerns, Cox signed the bill into law in March, and it went into effect in May, according to the Utah State Legislature website. The implementation of the Social Media Regulation Amendments has sparked a broader conversation about the balance between protecting freedom of speech and addressing concerns related to online content moderation.