Local Editor-in-Chief Betrays Shocking Ignorance of Censorship Law
How Section 230 has distorted even the most basic assumptions about disinformation
A Self-Styled “Editor”
It does not advance my argument to name the self-styled “editor in chief” about which I am writing, except to say they run a community-oriented website where folks can post articles and public notices. The community is in a solidly blue state. I believe this person does not consider themselves a so-called “conservative”. At no time have I sought to publish anything with this person. My interaction with him/her came about because they contacted me.
One more thing: I wrote this piece before the election. I decided to hold off publishing it, pending the results. Today, I see how this incident helps to highlight how general ignorance about the meaning of words like “truth” and “fact” has likely contributed to a GOP landslide.
My Speaking Tour
In early October, I gave a speech about Section 230 and disinformation in social media at a local venue. I had been giving these speeches at libraries and other public settings to enthusiastic response. Attendees at over a dozen such presentations gladly thanked me for illuminating an obscure but important issue. Many attendees had not known, to use a tired phrase, “how all of this works”. The librarians themselves were happy to provide positive reviews.
This editor—let’s call them Pat, even though that is not his/her name—was on my mailing list and had received an invitation to attend the presentation.
Not long after the event, Pat sent me an email with regrets that they could not attend but that the subject of disinformation raised questions they hoped I could answer. To my surprise, the questions took up several paragraphs. The subjects of disinformation and Section 230 were of keen interest to Pat!
Section 230
For the record, Section 230 is a US law that protects self-styled social media companies against liability for anything they choose to publish or promote. The (disputed) rationale is that the publisher should not be responsible if the content they publish came from (aka “was posted by”) a member of the public.
The upshot of my presentation (Pat missed it) was that we must sunset Section 230 to drastically reduce the amount of disinformation in social media. Without Section 230, all publishers would be equal. All of them would need to engage in at least rudimentary fact-checking before publishing content. They would find themselves liable for materially damaging lies, calls to violence, violent threats, doxxing, or invitations to self-harm. This would make them no more liable than all publishers everywhere have been and still are. Put another way, it would subject social media publishers to existing libel and tort laws regarding proximate cause. It is important to note that this dynamic already exists for all publishers except those who call themselves “social media”.
Do we hear traditional publishers complaining? We do not.
The World According to Pat
But back to Pat and those voluminous questions.
According to Pat, the truth cannot be known in today’s raucous social media environment. Pat also claims that fact-checking is a quaint relic from an era that has now passed. Further, Pat implied it was disingenuous to suggest facts were important in journalism; and that if the responsibility of fact-checking were to fall into the lap of a self-styled “Editor in Chief”, it would inconvenience them, and worse, it would disenfranchise thousands of so-called “citizen journalists”.
I find it wondrous how self-serving people can be. The suggestion that a “citizen journalist” is a journalist even though they ought never to be fact-checked is, in a sad and twisted way, humorous.
Pat also asserted that social media outfits today, to the extent they do engage in content moderation, are therefore in the business of “censorship” that Pat finds objectionable. Pat further believes that “certain types of important information” are being kept from the public by social media giants. This is tantamount to saying that all editorial decisions throughout history have been exercises in censorship. It is an ignorant assertion, especially from someone with a job title such as Pat’s. If I may extrapolate from Pat’s position, it would appear that social media ought to be publishing every item of content sent their way, including snuff movies, torture videos, violent threats, obvious lies, and so on.
I responded to Pat’s assertive questions. Then things got weird.
A Failure of Communication
I responded with easy and obvious refutations: fact-checking is as possible today as ever, and facts are indeed knowable and important. My example of a known fact was that in 1912 the Titanic sank. My example of a lie was that the Titanic still floats. I also pointed out that non-amplification cannot be censorship, because only the government can censor (aka make it illegal to say certain things). I told Pat that in the US, if you cannot get published, you can still buy a megaphone.
This proved unconvincing. According to Pat, finding the truth is impossible, doesn’t matter, and would be bad for business; further, all editorial choice is censorship.
At last, we had gotten to the crux of Pat’s concern.
An Editor Self-Protects
Pat asserted that he/she relied on the protections of Section 230. Further, without these protections, he/she would have to drastically alter their editorial approach or shut down the business. Pat believes, perhaps correctly, that anyone, without license to do so, can style themselves a so-called “bulletin board” under Section 230 and enjoy immunity from certain laws.
Pat’s final missive declared that my position about Section 230 was “chilling” and that it represented a world of oppression and censorship.
Stunning Blindness
Pat seemed unaware that every non-social-media publisher in the United States operates with some form of liability for what they publish. Pat also seemed immune to the argument that non-amplification is not censorship. According to Pat, if you sent a letter to a newspaper editor and the newspaper did not publish it, then that editorial choice was an act of censorship.
It took me several hours before an epiphany aroused me. I found myself astonished that Pat (or anyone) could, apropos of nothing, declare their business immune from the law. I do not believe this anomaly would even be contemplated except in the wild and wacky world of social media.
Self-declared Immunity from Law
Here is an example of how outrageous and self-serving the above claim is. I do not approve of police officers enjoying what is called “qualified immunity” for official actions. Nor do I approve of the Supreme Court saying a president has near total immunity. Those types of immunity are in my opinion inimical to justice and democracy.
But here is what is worse. Much worse!
To enjoy qualified immunity, at least you must be employed as a police officer.
To enjoy presidential immunity, at least you must have been elected president of the United States.
And yet Pat believes anyone, anywhere, can declare themselves immune from all responsibility as regards the quality and effect of their business product. They don’t need any official designation. They can just declare it!
I am sure many manufacturers and media companies would jump at the chance to declare perfect immunity. Of course, there’s a reason they cannot. Only in the little-understood world of social media do folks like Pat get to attempt an end-run around basic, civilized standards of care in their businesses.
I do hope Pat never has to defend him/herself under Section 230, but if they do, I will be keen to hear how Pat determined themselves immune from US law.
Andrew V. Edwards is the author of Digital is Destroying Everything (Rowman & Littlefield, 2015, 2018) and Army of Liars (Bloomsbury 2024). He is co-founder and Director Emeritus of the Digital Analytics Association.
Website: https://www.andrewvedwards.com/
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewvedwards/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/andrewvedwards1/