Justice Byron R. White, often hostile to the news media, wrote in a concurrence opinion that an unregulated and liberal journalism would be better than the alternative of government control.
“Of course, journalism is not always accurate, or even accountable, and may not offer full and fair debate on important public issues,” he wrote. “But the balance of the First Amendment for journalism is that society has to accept the risk that sometimes debate on important issues will not be comprehensive and all views may not be expressed. .”
Less than two weeks ago, Judge Robert L. Hinkle of the Federal District Court in Tallahassee blocked another Florida law, which was enacted in May and animated by several similar ideas being denied. The Supreme Court overturned it in 1974. The law would have fined some social media platforms for conducting editorial reviews in their refusal to amplify the views of politicians who violated the standards. their standards.
In a statement released as he signed the bill, Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, said the point of the law was to promote conservative views. “If Big Tech’s censors had inconsistently enforced rules that discriminated in favor of Silicon Valley’s dominant ideology, they would now be held accountable,” he said.
Judge Hinkle cited Tornillo’s decision but wrote that there are significant differences between the press and platforms like Facebook and Twitter.
Newspapers, unlike social media providers, “create or select all of their content, including op-eds and editorial letters,” he writes. In contrast, he writes, “something good north of 99% of the content that makes it to a social networking site is never reviewed further”.
But the new law, Justice Hinkle wrote, is aimed at “ideologically sensitive cases,” cases where platforms use as much discretion as journalism.