A law recently passed by the New York State Legislature poses a serious threat to online speech. FIRE is already challenging this outrageous law, which I doubt can survive a legal battle, but in the meantime, it poses a threat to anyone running a site that’s read in New York and allows user input.

The law applies to the ill-defined category of “social media networks.” That doesn’t just mean Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. It could apply to anyone who runs a Mastodon instance or even runs a blog that allows comments. FIRE says:

The law forces internet platforms of all stripes to publish a policy explaining how they will respond to online expression that could “vilify, humiliate, or incite violence” based on a protected class, like religion, gender, or race. The law also requires the platforms to create a way for visitors to complain about “hateful” content or comments, and mandates that they answer complaints with a direct response. Refusal to comply could mean investigations from the attorney general’s office, subpoenas, and daily fines of $1,000 per violation.

A thousand dollars is nothing to the big sites I just mentioned. But to someone running a small site or blog, each day’s fine can easily be more than five years’ normal operating expenses. Compliance requires paying constant attention to anything that appears on your site. It’s common for blogs to let comments appear automatically if a previous comment by the same person has been approved. What if you’re away for a week, someone posts a comment which the New York AG doesn’t like, and you aren’t there to moderate it?

I’m not a lawyer, so don’t take my word for how dangerous this law is to free expression. Take a look at the complaint filed in federal court filed by Eugene Volokh.

According to the complaint, the New York Legislature presumes to give orders to the whole world, conscripting everyone who has a website that allows third-party content to act as a censor, under the threat of huge fines.

Effective December 3, 2022, New York’s law requires virtually every online service that is accessed by New Yorkers and allows third parties to share information, to endorse the state’s definition of hate speech, mislabeled as ‘hateful conduct.’

What’s banned depends on prosecutors’ whims. Attorney General Letitia James has been pushing the censorship campaign, implying that the Buffalo shooting earlier this year was the fault of an uncensored Internet. She’s probably thinking of how her predecessor Andrew Cuomo ran a smear campaign against Usenet to launch his political career and thinking a similar tactic will work for her.

Moreover, as a result of the law’s vague terms, Plaintiffs are not even sure how to comply. The law’s title ‘Social media networks; hateful conduct prohibited’ suggests Plaintiffs must ban speech that meets state-defined hate speech. The definition’s vague terms, ‘vilify,’ ‘humiliate,’ ‘incite,’ and ‘violence,’ make it impossible for either Plaintiffs or the public to know exactly what speech constitutes ‘hateful conduct.’

I fully intend this post to vilify and humiliate the scumbag legislature that passed the bill and the Attorney General who wants to be chief censor, so I may already be subject to a fine. Come and get it if you think you can, Letitia the Louse.

Politicians have grown increasingly hostile to free speech, but this law is especially outrageous, and it’s a serious threat to anyone who runs a website that deals with anything controversial. If you get threatened by New York prosecutors under this law, get a lawyer. I’m sure New York’s goons will lose, but things could be ugly till they do.