Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page1 of 38
`
`23-356
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
`
`EUGENE VOLOKH, LOCALS TECHNOLOGY INC.,
`RUMBLE CANADA INC.,
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
`
`V.
`
`LETITIA JAMES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY
`AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK,
`DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Southern District of New York
`Case No. 1: 22-cv-10195
`The Honorable Andrew L. Carter, United States District Court Judge
`
`
`BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
`AND AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION IN SUPPORT OF
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE
`
`
`
`BRIAN HAUSS
`AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
`FOUNDATION
`125 Broad St., 18th Fl.
`New York, NY 10004
`bhauss@aclu.org
`(212) 549-2500
`
`
`DAVID GREENE
`ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
`815 Eddy Street
`San Francisco, CA 94109
`davidg@eff.org
`(415) 436-9333
`
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page2 of 38
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Amici
`
`Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and American Civil Liberties Union
`
`(ACLU) state that they do not have a parent corporation and that no publicly held
`
`corporation owns 10% or more of their stock.
`
`Dated: September 26, 2023
`
`
`
`By: /s/ David Greene
`David Greene
`
`
`
` i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page3 of 38
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................... iv
`
`STATEMENT OF INTEREST ................................................................................. 1
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 3
`
`I.
`
`The Content Moderation Systems Targeted by the Law Are Editorial
`Processes Protected by the First Amendment. ...................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`Content Moderation Is an Inherently Expressive Editorial
`Process. ....................................................................................... 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Content Moderation Is an Historic and Widely
`Employed Practice. .......................................................... 4
`
`Social Media Platforms Have Rules, Standards and
`Guidelines about What Content They Want and Don’t
`Want on Their Sites. ......................................................... 7
`
`Content Moderation Has Long Been and Remains a
`Fraught and Controversial Process. .................................. 8
`
`B.
`
`Content Moderation is Protected by the First Amendment. ..... 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The First Amendment protects the right to speak by
`curating the speech of others. ......................................... 14
`
`Social media and other interactive websites have a
`constitutional right to adopt, define, and implement
`their own editorial policies. ............................................ 17
`
`II. Government Involvement in Content Moderation Raises Serious
`First Amendment Concerns. ............................................................... 21
`
`III. The New York Law Unconstitutionally Coerces Interactive
`Websites to Adopt the State’s Hate Speech Philosophy at the
`Expense of Their Own Editorial Policies. ........................................... 22
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page4 of 38
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 25
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 27
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page5 of 38
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`303 Creative LLC v. Elenis,
`600 U.S. ___, 143 S. Ct. 2298 (2023) ................................................................. 19
`
`Amer. Freedom Defense Initiative v. Lynch,
`217 F. Supp. 3d 100 (D.D.C. 2016) .................................................................... 18
`
`Application of Consumers Union of U. S., Inc.,
`495 F. Supp. 582 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) ...................................................................... 15
`
`Backpage.com v. Dart,
`807 F.3d 229 (7th Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 23, 24
`
`Bantam Books, Inc. v Sullivan.
`372 U.S. 58 (1963) ........................................................................................ 22, 23
`
`Bursey v. United States,
`466 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir. 1972) ............................................................................. 14
`
`Children's Health Def. v. Facebook Inc.,
`546 F. Supp. 3d 909 (N.D. Cal. 2021)................................................................. 18
`
`Herbert v. Lando,
`441 U.S. 153 (1974) ............................................................................................ 15
`
`Huber v. Biden,
`No. 21-CV-06580-EMC, 2022 WL 827248
`(N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2022) ................................................................................... 18
`
`Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston,
`515 U.S. 557 (1995) ............................................................................................ 18
`
`In re Consumers Union of the U.S., Inc.,
`32 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1373 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) ......................................................... 15
`
`Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees,
`Council 31,
`138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) ........................................................................................ 17
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page6 of 38
`
`Kenneally v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd.,
`No. M-8-85, 1994 WL 48840 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 1994) .................................... 15
`
`Kennedy v. Warren,
`66 F.4th 1199 (9th Cir. 2023) .............................................................................. 24
`
`La’Tiejira v. Facebook, Inc.,
`272 F. Supp. 3d 981 (S.D. Tex. 2017)................................................................. 18
`
`Langdon v. Google, Inc.,
`474 F. Supp. 2d 622 (D. Del. 2007) .................................................................... 18
`
`Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc.,
`476 U.S. 488 (1986) ............................................................................................ 14
`
`Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck,
`139 S. Ct. 1921 (2019) ........................................................................................ 14
`
`Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n,
`138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018) ........................................................................................ 17
`
`Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo,
`418 U.S. 241 (1974) .....................................................................................passim
`
`Miller v. California,
`413 U.S. 15 (1973) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra,
`138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) ........................................................................................ 17
`
`National Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo,
`49 F.4th 700 (2d Cir. 2022) ................................................................................. 24
`
`NetChoice LLC v. Attorney General, Florida,
`34 F.4th 1196 (11th Cir. 2022) ...................................................................... 18, 19
`
`NetChoice, LLC v Paxton,
`49 F.4th 439 (5th Cir. 2022) .......................................................................... 19, 20
`
`New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,
`376 U.S. 254 (1964) ............................................................................................ 16
`
` v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page7 of 38
`
`O’Handley v. Padilla,
`No. 21-CV-07063- CRB, 2022 WL 93625
`(N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2022) ..................................................................................... 18
`
`Okwedy v. Molinari,
`333 F.3d 339 (2d Cir. 2003) ................................................................................ 24
`
`Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utilities Comm’n of California,
`475 U.S. 1 (1986) ................................................................................................ 18
`
`Prager Univ. v. Google LLC,
`951 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2020). .............................................................................. 19
`
`PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins,
`447 U.S. 74 (1980) .............................................................................................. 19
`
`Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc.,
`547 U.S. 47 (2006) .............................................................................................. 19
`
`State of Missouri v. Biden,
`No. 23-30445, 2023 WL 5821788 (5th Cir., Sept. 8, 2023)................................ 24
`
`Stossel v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`634 F. Supp. 3d 743 (N.D. Cal. 2022)................................................................. 18
`
`Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C.,
`512 U.S. 622 (1994) ............................................................................................ 18
`
`Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. United States,
`72 F.4th 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2023) ........................................................................... 10
`
`Zhang v. Baidu.com Inc.,
`10 F. Supp. 3d 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); .................................................................. 18
`
`Statutes
`
`N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 394-ccc................................................................ 3, 20, 22, 23
`
`Other Authorities
`
`A New Policy Against Self-Harm Blogs, Tumblr (Feb. 23, 2012) ............................ 6
`
`Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity, Facebook ............................................................. 7
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page8 of 38
`
`Article 19, Sheikh Jarrah: Facebook and Twitter Silencing Protestors, Deleting
`Evidence (May 10, 2021) .................................................................................... 12
`
`Bennett Cyphers, Cory Doctorow, The New ACCESS Act Is a Good Start.
`Here’s How to Make Sure It Delivers, EFF ........................................................ 21
`
`Comment on Evaluating the Competitive Effects of Corporate Acquisitions and
`Mergers, EFF....................................................................................................... 21
`
`Community Guidelines, Instagram ............................................................................ 7
`
`Community Standards Enforcement Report: Bullying and Harassment, Meta....... 13
`
`Community Standards Enforcement Report: Hate Speech, Meta ........................... 13
`
`Danielle Blunt et al., Posting Into The Void, Hacking//Hustling (2020) ................ 10
`
`Defining the Public Interest, X Help Center ............................................................. 6
`
`Digital Well-being, TikTok ....................................................................................... 6
`
`Eric Goldman, Content Moderation Remedies, 28 Mich. Tech. L. Rev. 1 (2021) 6, 8
`
`Facebook Treats Punk Rockers Like Crazy Conspiracy Theorists, Kicks Them
`Offline, EFF ......................................................................................................... 11
`
`Gettr – Terms of Use, Gettr (May 17, 2023) ............................................................. 8
`
`Hannah Bloch-Wehba, Automation in Moderation, 53 Cornell Int’l L.J. 41 (2020) 4
`
`Hannah Denham, Another Fake Video of Pelosi Goes Viral on Facebook, Wash.
`Post (Aug. 3, 2020)................................................................................................ 7
`
`Instagram Stands Against Online Bullying, Instagram ............................................. 6
`
`Jack Shafer, The Op-Ed Page’s Back Pages: A Press Scholar Explains
`How the New York Times Op-Ed Page Got Started,
`Slate (Sept. 27, 2010) .......................................................................................... 16
`
`James Grimmelmann, The Virtues of Moderation, 17 Yale J. of Law & Tech 42
`(2015) .................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Jillian C. York & David Greene, How to Put COVID-19 Content Moderation Into
`Context, Brookings’ TechStream (May 21, 2020) ................................................ 4
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page9 of 38
`
`Jillian C. York, Silicon Values: The Future of Free Speech Under Surveillance
`Capitalism (Verso 2021) ....................................................................................... 9
`
`Kate Crawford & Tarleton Gillespie, What Is a Flag For? Social Media Reporting
`Tools and the Vocabulary of Complaint, 18 New Media & Soc’y 410 (2014) ... 13
`
`Kate Klonick, The New Governors: The People, Rules, And Processes Governing
`Online Speech, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 1598 (2018) ............................................ 5, 7, 8
`
`Kevin Anderson, YouTube Suspends Egyptian Blog Activist’s Account, The
`Guardian (Nov. 28, 2007)................................................................................ 9, 11
`
`Malachy Browne, YouTube Removes Videos Showing Atrocities in Syria, N.Y.
`Times (Aug. 22, 2017) ........................................................................................ 11
`
`Megan Farokhmanesh, YouTube Is Still Restricting and Demonetizing LGBT
`Videos—and Adding Anti-LGBT Ads to Some, The Verge (June 4, 2018) ......... 11
`
`Michael J. Socolow, A Profitable Public Sphere: The Creation of the New York
`Times Op-Ed Page, Commc’n & Journalism Fac. Scholarship (2010)............... 16
`
`Mike Masnick, Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: Recent Examples Of
`Misunderstanding Context, TechDirt (Feb. 26, 2021) ........................................ 10
`
`Moderator Code of Conduct, Reddit ....................................................................... 12
`
`Op-Ed, Wikipedia .................................................................................................... 16
`
`Pennysaver, Wikipedia ............................................................................................ 17
`
`Policy: Terms of Use, Wikimedia ........................................................................... 12
`
`Promoting Hate Based on Identity or Vulnerability, Reddit ..................................... 8
`
`Reddiquette, Reddit ................................................................................................. 13
`
`Report Content on Facebook, Facebook ................................................................. 13
`
`Role of Administrators and Moderators on Discord, Discord ................................ 12
`
`Rules Enforcement, Twitter (July 28, 2022)............................................................ 14
`
`Ryan Mac, Instagram Censored Posts About One of Islam’s Holiest Mosques,
`Drawing Employee Ire, BuzzFeed News (May 12, 2021) .................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page10 of 38
`
`Santa Clara Principles ............................................................................................. 21
`
`Sensitive Media Policy, Twitter (March 2023) ......................................................... 7
`
`Seny Kamara et al., Outside Looking In: Approaches to Content Moderation in
`End-to-End Encrypted Systems, Ctr. for Democracy & Tech. (2021) .................. 5
`
`Taylor Wofford, Twitter Was Flagging Tweets Including the Word “Queer” as
`Potentially “Offensive Content”, Mic (June 22, 2017) ....................................... 12
`
`Twitter Suspends Accounts of Palestinian Quds News Network, Al Jazeera
`(Nov. 2, 2019) ..................................................................................................... 12
`
`Violent and Graphic Content, Meta Transparency Center ........................................ 6
`
`YouTube Community Guidelines Enforcement, Google .......................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page11 of 38
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF INTEREST1
`
`Amici curiae submit this brief to provide additional information and
`
`argument on two issues raised by this appeal that are within amici’s field of
`
`expertise: the nature of content moderation as practiced by social media and other
`
`interactive websites as constitutionally protected editorial and curatorial
`
`expression; and, the weighty First Amendment concerns raised by governmental
`
`interference with such curatorial expression. Amici curiae do so from the
`
`perspective of the Internet users who read and contribute to such sites, rather than
`
`the sites themselves as represented by plaintiffs.
`
`The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a member-supported, nonprofit
`
`civil liberties organization that has worked for over 30 years to protect free speech,
`
`privacy, security, and innovation in the digital world. EFF, with approximately
`
`30,000 members, represents the interests of technology users in court cases and
`
`broader policy debates surrounding the application of law to the Internet and other
`
`technologies. EFF frequently files briefs in cases addressing online intermediary
`
`content moderation, and studies and writes extensively on the issue.
`
`The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nationwide, non-partisan,
`
`
`1 No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other
`than amici or their counsel has made any monetary contributions intended to fund
`the preparation or submission of this brief. The parties have consented to the filing
`of this brief.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page12 of 38
`
`
`
`non-profit organization. The organization is dedicated to defending the principles
`
`embodied in the Constitution and our nation’s civil rights laws and, for over a
`
`century, has been at the forefront of efforts nationwide to protect the full array of
`
`civil rights and liberties, including freedom of speech and freedom of the press
`
`online. The ACLU has frequently appeared before courts throughout the country in
`
`First Amendment cases, both as direct counsel and as amicus curiae.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page13 of 38
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Section 394-ccc is an unconstitutional intrusion into the editorial freedom
`
`that all publishers, including social media platforms and other websites, enjoy. The
`
`law’s clear purpose is to change the editorial policies and editorial methods of
`
`these publishers to accord with the state’s definition of hateful speech and what the
`
`state perceives to be its attendant harms. While the law purports to empower some
`
`internet users, it also aims to silence others and deny still others access to
`
`information.
`
`Content moderation by the online intermediaries is an already fraught
`
`process, and government interjection of itself into that process in any form raises
`
`serious First Amendment, and broader human rights, concerns. Courts must
`
`generally scrutinize such interventions. Laws such as section 394-ccc that seek to
`
`coopt a portion of the process must survive First Amendment scrutiny. Section
`
`394-ccc does not. This Court should affirm the district court’s order enjoining the
`
`law’s enforcement.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I. The Content Moderation Systems Targeted by the Law Are Editorial
`Processes Protected by the First Amendment.
`
`As a threshold matter, this Court should join the other courts that recognize
`
`that the social media platforms and other websites subject to section 394-ccc have
`
`the First Amendment right to curate the speech of others that is published on their
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page14 of 38
`
`
`
`sites, regardless of whether they curate a lot or a little, and regardless of whether
`
`their editorial philosophy is readily discernible or consistently applied.
`
`A. Content Moderation Is an Inherently Expressive Editorial
`Process.
`
`1.
`
`Content Moderation Is an Historic and Widely Employed
`Practice.
`
`Social media platforms, at least from their point of mass adoption, have
`
`rarely published all legal speech submitted to their sites. Instead, they engage in
`
`content moderation: the use of policies, systems, and tools to decide what user-
`
`generated content or accounts to publish, remove, amplify, or manage.2 Large-
`
`scale, outsourced content moderation first emerged in the early 2000s.3
`
`Platforms practice content moderation in phases: they define permissible and
`
`impermissible content; detect content that may violate their policies or the law;
`
`evaluate that content to determine whether it in fact violates their policies or the
`
`law; take an enforcement action against violative content; allow users to appeal or
`
`otherwise seek review of content moderation decisions that they believe are
`
`erroneous; and educate users about content moderation policies and their
`
`
`2 See Hannah Bloch-Wehba, Automation in Moderation, 53 Cornell Int’l L.J. 41,
`42, 48 (2020).
`3 Jillian C. York & David Greene, How to Put COVID-19 Content Moderation Into
`Context, Brookings’ TechStream (May 21, 2020),
`https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-to-put-covid-19-content-moderation-into-
`context/.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page15 of 38
`
`
`
`enforcement.4 In each phase, platforms make editorial judgments about what
`
`content they wish to allow or forbid on their services, or how to display or arrange
`
`it.
`
`For example, during the definitional phase, some platforms develop a
`
`content policy, i.e., a set of rules about what content is and is not allowed on their
`
`platforms.5 Platforms may engage in significant internal discussion and debate,
`
`conduct internal and external research, and write multiple drafts before
`
`determining their content policies.6 Smaller platforms might not adopt formal
`
`policies at all—particularly, for example, platforms like blogs, where the small
`
`community size could make it manageable for a single blogger to moderate the
`
`platform via ad hoc decision-making.7 Many platforms publish their content
`
`policies, but others do not, in order to maintain flexibility and for other reasons.
`
`
`4 Seny Kamara et al., Outside Looking In: Approaches to Content Moderation in
`End-to-End Encrypted Systems, Ctr. for Democracy & Tech. 9–11 (2021),
`https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CDT-Outside-Looking-In-Approaches-
`to-Content-Moderation-in-End-to-End-Encrypted-Systems-updated-20220113.pdf.
`5 Id. at 9.
`6 See Kate Klonick, The New Governors: The People, Rules, And Processes
`Governing Online Speech, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 1598, 1631-35 (2018).
`7 See James Grimmelmann, The Virtues of Moderation, 17 Yale J. of Law & Tech
`42, 73 (2015) (“[T]he larger a community is, the better it is at competing with
`external alternatives, but the more internal moderation it requires . . . . As a
`community grows, it becomes easier for individuals and groups to resist a norm.
`This breakdown makes it harder to use social norms to moderate large
`communities. A group of twenty can operate by unspoken consensus in a way that
`a group of twenty thousand cannot.”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page16 of 38
`
`
`
`Once a platform has decided, perhaps after deliberation and debate, during
`
`the evaluation phase that particular content violates its policies, the platform must
`
`decide what action to take in the enforcement phase. That is not a binary decision
`
`about whether to take down content or allow it to remain on a service, but also
`
`includes whether to change the manner or place in which content is displayed or to
`
`add the platform’s own affirmative speech.8 For example, depending on the nature
`
`of the violative content, a platform might choose to add its own content warning,
`
`public service announcement, health or safety resources, or “fact-checking”
`
`information to provide context and support for its users.9
`
`
`8 See Eric Goldman, Content Moderation Remedies, 28 Mich. Tech. L. Rev. 1, 23–
`39 (2021) (describing various enforcement options).
`9 Id. at 26-27, 30-31. See also, e.g., Instagram Stands Against Online Bullying,
`Instagram, https://about.instagram.com/community/anti-bullying (last visited Sept.
`22, 2023) (warnings before posting “potentially offensive” comments); Digital
`Well-being, TikTok, https://www.tiktok.com/safety/en-gb/well-being/ (last visited
`Sept. 22, 2023) (digital well-being and media literacy resource guide); Violent and
`Graphic Content, Meta Transparency Center,
`https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/violent-graphic-content/
`(last visited Sept. 22, 2023) (warning labels for graphic content); Defining the
`Public Interest, X Help Center, https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-
`policies/public-interest (last visited Sept. 21, 2023) (public click-through notice
`added to posts by government official that violate content policies and would
`otherwise be taken down, but are left up under X’s public interest exception); A
`New Policy Against Self-Harm Blogs, Tumblr (Feb. 23, 2012),
`https://staff.tumblr.com/post/18132624829/self-harm-blogs (proposing adding
`PSAs to self-harm-related search results).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page17 of 38
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Social Media Platforms Have Rules, Standards and
`Guidelines about What Content They Want and Don’t
`Want on Their Sites.
`
`Social media platforms’ content policies commonly prohibit users from
`
`posting speech that a platform believes is detrimental to its users and the public, its
`
`business interests, its editorial preferences, or all of these, even if that speech is
`
`legal. For example, many platforms ban legal, non-obscene sexual content, even
`
`though such speech enjoys First Amendment protection, see Miller v. California,
`
`413 U.S. 15 (1973).10
`
`Content moderation differs from platform to platform.11 Some platforms
`
`detect potentially violating content only after it is posted; others screen some or all
`
`content ex ante.12 Platforms make different judgment calls about whether particular
`
`content violates their content policies, even if those policies are similar.13 They use
`
`
`10 See, e.g., Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity, Facebook,
`https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/adult-nudity-sexual-
`activity/ (last visited Sept. 21, 2023).
`11 Compare Community Guidelines, Instagram,
`https://help.instagram.com/477434105621119 (last visited Sept. 21, 2023)
`(prohibiting nudity except in the context of breastfeeding, birth-related moments,
`health-related situations, in paintings or sculptures, or as an act of protest), with
`Sensitive Media Policy, Twitter (March 2023), https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-
`and-policies/media-policy (permitting “consensually produced adult nudity”).
`12 Klonick, supra n.6, at 1635.
`13 See, e.g., Hannah Denham, Another Fake Video of Pelosi Goes Viral on
`Facebook, Wash. Post (Aug. 3, 2020),
`https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/08/03/nancy-pelosi-fake-video-
`facebook/ (reporting that TikTok, Twitter and YouTube removed a doctored video
`of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, while Facebook allowed it to remain with a label).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page18 of 38
`
`
`
`different methods to enforce their content policies, such as labeling content,
`
`placing interstitial warnings over it, or removing the ability to make money from
`
`it.14 Some platforms allow users to appeal content moderation decisions, while
`
`others do not.15
`
`Although many platforms choose to prohibit speech expressing hatred based
`
`on race, ethnicity, religion, and other characteristics, they do so in divergent
`
`manners. For example, social media platform Gettr explains that it “holds freedom
`
`of speech as its core value and does not wish to censor your opinions,” while at the
`
`same time reserving the right to “address” content that attacks any religion or
`
`race.16 Reddit’s content policy prohibits content that promotes “hate based on
`
`identity or vulnerability,” including race, religion, and national origin.17
`
`3.
`
`Content Moderation Has Long Been and Remains a
`Fraught and Controversial Process.
`
`Content moderation controversies are not a new problem.
`
`In 2007, YouTube, only two years old at the time, shut down the account of
`
`Egyptian human rights activist Wael Abbas after receiving multiple reports that the
`
`
`14 Goldman, supra n.8, at 23–39.
`15 Klonick, supra n.6, at 1648.
`16 Gettr – Terms of Use, Gettr (May 17, 2023), https://gettr.com/terms.
`17 Promoting Hate Based on Identity or Vulnerability, Reddit,
`https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951 (last visited Sept. 21,
`2023).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page19 of 38
`
`
`
`account featured graphic videos of police brutality and torture.18 YouTube’s
`
`community standards at the time stated that “[g]raphic or gratuitous violence is not
`
`allowed.”19 Just one year before, Abbas became the first blogger to receive the
`
`Knight International Journalism Award.20
`
`And government’s attempts to influence content moderation date back just
`
`as far: Abbas’s account was restored only after the U.S. State Department
`
`communicated with YouTube’s new owner, Google.21
`
`Content moderation remains a difficult and often fraught process that even
`
`the largest and best-resourced social media companies struggle with, often to the
`
`frustration of users. Even when using a set of precise rules or carefully articulated
`
`“community standards,” moderated platforms often struggle to draw workable
`
`lines between permitted and forbidden speech. Every online forum for user speech,
`
`not just the dominant social media platforms, struggles with this problem.
`
`Platforms’ content moderation decisions are thus sometimes inconsistent or
`
`seemingly contrary to their own policies. Some of that is inevitable. Given the
`
`
`18 Kevin Anderson, YouTube Suspends Egyptian Blog Activist’s Account, Guardian
`(Nov. 28, 2007),
`https://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2007/nov/28/youtubesuspendsegyptianbl
`og.
`19 Id.
`20 Jillian C. York, Silicon Values: The Future of Free Speech Under Surveillance
`Capitalism 25-27 (Verso 2021).
`21 Id.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page20 of 38
`
`
`
`staggering amounts of content posted on platforms every day and the subjective
`
`judgment calls that some content moderation decisions require, platforms make
`
`mistakes in either moderating or failing to moderate content.22
`
`Beyond mistakes, platforms have often aggressively removed content that is
`
`not prohibited by their content policies, especially when attempting to minimize
`
`legal or reputational risks arising from government regulation or criticism. For
`
`example, many platforms responded to the enactment of the Allow States and
`
`Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act/Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act
`
`(“FOSTA”) by removing content by sex workers and sex worker advocates that is
`
`not actually prohibited by FOSTA.23 See Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. United
`
`States, 72 F.4th 1286, 1299-1305 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (describing FOSTA’s very
`
`limited prohibitions). Government pressure to remove terrorist content from
`
`platforms has also led to over-removals of speech. For instance, in 2021, Instagram
`
`removed posts about one of Islam’s holiest mosques, Al-Aqsa, because its name is
`
`contained within the name of an organization the company had designated as a
`
`
`22 See Mike Masnick, Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: Recent
`Examples Of Misunderstanding Context, TechDirt (Feb. 26, 2021),
`https://www.techdirt.com/2021/02/26/content-moderation-scale-is-impossible-
`recent-examples-misunderstanding-context/.
`23 See Danielle Blunt et al., Posting Into The Void, Hacking//Hustling (2020),
`https://hackinghustling.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Posting-Into-the-Void.pdf.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 23-356, Document 72, 09/26/2023, 3573797, Page21 of 38
`
`
`
`terrori