There's No 'Hate Speech,' and No Holding Tech Companies Liable For It
RealClearMarkets·2025-11-05 06:00

Core Points - California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed bill SB-771, which aimed to hold social media companies liable for "recklessly" allowing hate speech, replacing the current requirement of "knowingly" aiding violations of civil rights law [1][3] - The bill's intent was to address the challenges of proving that social media companies knowingly facilitated civil rights violations, while also attempting to avoid First Amendment challenges [1][3] - Despite the veto, Newsom expressed a willingness to revisit the issue if existing civil rights laws are deemed inadequate to address violations through algorithms [3] Legal Context - Holding tech companies liable for "recklessly" allowing hate speech conflicts with Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from liability for user-generated content [2] - The Supreme Court's ruling in Twitter, Inc v. Taamneh established that platforms can only be held liable for aiding and abetting if they engage in "conscious, voluntary, and culpable participation" in wrongdoing [2] Political Reactions - The passage of SB-771 in the California legislature was met with objections, but Newsom's veto indicated a division within political circles regarding the balance between free speech and hate speech regulation [3] - Attorney General Pam Bondi's comments on targeting hate speech sparked backlash from conservatives, highlighting the ongoing debate about the definition and regulation of hate speech [3] Judicial Precedents - The Supreme Court's decision in Matal v. Tam emphasized the protection of free speech, including speech that may be considered hateful, reinforcing the principle that all speech, regardless of its nature, is protected under the First Amendment [4] - Comments from political figures like Charlie Kirk further underline the legal stance that hate speech does not exist as a separate category under U.S. law, emphasizing the broad protections afforded by the First Amendment [4]