[ad_1]
Judge Byron R. White, who is often hostile to the news media, wrote in concurrence that a disorganized and rebellious press is better than an alternative to government control.
“Of course, the press is not always accurate or even responsible and may not offer full and fair discussion on important public issues,” he wrote. “But the balance the First Amendment strikes with the press is that society must take the risk that occasional debates on vital issues will not be comprehensive and not all viewpoints may be expressed.”
Less than two weeks ago, Judge Robert L. Hinkle of the Tallahassee Federal District Court another Florida lawIt went into effect this May and was revived by some of the same ideas that were rejected by the Supreme Court in 1974. The law would impose fines on some social media platforms for making editorial decisions that refused to raise the views of politicians who violated their standards. .
In an idiom when was it published signed the billRepublican Governor Ron DeSantis said the purpose of the law was to support conservative views. “If Big Tech censors inconsistently enforce the rules to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable,” he said.
Judge Hinkle referred to the Tornillo decision but wrote that there were significant differences between newspapers and platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
“Newspapers, unlike social media providers,” he wrote, “create or select all of their content, including op-eds and letters to the editor.” In contrast, “something north of 99 percent of the content that goes into a social media site is never further reviewed,” he wrote.
But Judge Hinkle wrote that the new law targets “ideologically sensitive cases” in which platforms exercise their discretion, such as newspapers.
[ad_2]
Source link