New York’s Controversial Online Speech Law Faces More Legal Challengers

New York's attempt to regulate online speech faces legal challenges. Illustration by Midjourney

The Babylon Bee, a well-known satirical news outlet, is at the forefront of a pivotal First Amendment case in New York’s judicial system.

Image Audio Player
AI Jane
Let AI Jane narrate.

The case stems from a controversial regulation passed by New York state last year, which sought to restrict online speech that could “vilify, humiliate, or incite violence” based on various protected categories, including race, religion, and gender identity.

Critics argue that the law, with few exceptions, infringes on constitutionally protected speech.

Babylon Bee joins other free-speech advocates like Rumble, who have filed amicus briefs over the regulation.

The legislation imposes hefty daily fines on websites that fail to publicize their response plans to prohibited speech. Additionally, it mandates the establishment of a reporting mechanism for offended readers, pressuring platform owners to censor or face penalties.

Alarmingly, the law was introduced following the tragic Buffalo supermarket massacre. Critics believe Albany legislators are exploiting the tragedy, which was not instigated by speech, to curtail First Amendment rights.

The potential misuse of such a law is vast and may apply to web hosts outside New York.

A web host could be subject to the regulation if it has a physical presence in New York State. For example, if the web host has an office in New York State, it could be subject to regulation even if it hosts websites for customers worldwide.

Another exception to the rule is that a web host outside New York State could be subject to the regulation if it does business in New York State.

New York already has established laws against hate speech, cyberbullying, and harassment, with specific definitions for each.

However, in February 2023, Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District halted the New York regulation requiring social media platforms to remove “hateful content.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was among the entities challenging the law, asserting it violated First Amendment rights.

The judge expressed concerns about the law’s potential to infringe on protected speech and its ambiguous nature, which could pose challenges for platforms trying to adhere to it.

New York State has since appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously blocked the rule.

Arguments were heard on August 24, with a decision still pending.

This case is one of many across the U.S. challenging the boundaries of online speech. Other notable cases include Florida’s dispute with Twitter over banning former President Donald Trump and various states challenging laws related to hate speech, algorithm transparency, and platform neutrality.

The outcomes of these cases could significantly shape the future of online speech regulation in the U.S.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here