ExpressLane
Verified User
Babylon Bee fights for free speech all the way to the Supreme Court
On February 28, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases involving state laws in Texas and Florida that increase transparency and accountability for Big Tech companies. The laws would require social media giants to publish their user standards and then apply them fairly.
The Babylon Bee filed a friend of the court (amicus) brief to explain to the court that, when left to their own devices, Big Tech often abuses these vague policies to silence voices that challenge its orthodoxy — too often at the expense of conservative and religious viewpoints.
Social media titans seem to have unlimited, unilateral authority to censor, deplatform or shadow-ban disfavored users, content and viewpoints. The companies claim to be "content-neutral" and "open platforms," and they reserve the right to censor content that violates their "community guidelines" and rules against "hate" and "misinformation."
In 2022, Twitter suspended The Babylon Bee’s account for ‘hateful conduct’ after it named Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Rachel Levine the site’s "Man of the Year." Twitter refused to reinstate The Bee unless it deleted the tweet, something The Bee refused to do on principle. Had Elon Musk not bought Twitter, The Bee would almost certainly still be banned.
Humorless Facebook employees read The Bee’s satire piece during Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing — titled "Senator Hirono Demands ACB Be Weighed Against a Duck to See If She Is a Witch." Facebook quickly decided the article "incited violence" and refused to change its position.
A few months ago, YouTube flagged The Bee as a "violent criminal organization" because it questioned censorship (apparently failing to see the irony). YouTube removed its video "If the LEAKED Nashville Shooter Manifesto is legit, what does it say about censorship in the US?" Even after appealing this mischaracterization of the video’s content, YouTube held firm.
But this isn’t just The Bee’s problem. Far from it.
Big-Tech-driven censorship also impacts religious Americans whose faith animates traditional views on many topics of intense political debate. Social media has repeatedly kicked organizations off their platforms for supporting traditional marriage, opposing abortion and questioning transgenderism.
In the past few years, faith-based and pro-life organizations were deplatformed at a nearly weekly rate.
In 2018, Facebook temporarily suspended Pastor Franklin Graham for "hate speech" and "dehumanizing language" because of an old comment on North Carolina’s bathroom law, where Graham said we "need to go back! Back to God. Back to respecting and honoring his commands." Facebook apologized only after immense backlash.
In 2020, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter all censored praise and worship videos posted by Bethel Music’s Sean Feucht, claiming his videos violated "community guidelines."
The same year, YouTube temporarily booted theologian John Piper’s audiobook, "Coronavirus and Christ," for "violating community guidelines."
Social media has also clamped down on pro-life ads from Susan B. Anthony List, Heartbeat International, Live Action, Students for Life, and even pro-life senatorial candidates, all while allowing Planned Parenthood’s pro-abortion political ads without question.
This egregious, one-sided censorship is why we argued in our brief that the Supreme Court should allow states to hold Big Tech to its own rules and provide fair platforms. ....
What’s more, the Texas and Florida laws do not infringe on these corporations’ free speech rights. The laws allow companies to create their own user standards and policies for allowed content. Instead, the laws merely require social media platforms to be accountable. If their user standards discriminate against certain views, users should know that up front.....
====================
Big tech is more like Big Brother. They should be held to a standard. Texas simply wants to know what Big Tech says their rules are and if those rules are being applied fairly. This is going to be a very interesting case to watch in the SCOTUS
On February 28, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases involving state laws in Texas and Florida that increase transparency and accountability for Big Tech companies. The laws would require social media giants to publish their user standards and then apply them fairly.
The Babylon Bee filed a friend of the court (amicus) brief to explain to the court that, when left to their own devices, Big Tech often abuses these vague policies to silence voices that challenge its orthodoxy — too often at the expense of conservative and religious viewpoints.
Social media titans seem to have unlimited, unilateral authority to censor, deplatform or shadow-ban disfavored users, content and viewpoints. The companies claim to be "content-neutral" and "open platforms," and they reserve the right to censor content that violates their "community guidelines" and rules against "hate" and "misinformation."
In 2022, Twitter suspended The Babylon Bee’s account for ‘hateful conduct’ after it named Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Rachel Levine the site’s "Man of the Year." Twitter refused to reinstate The Bee unless it deleted the tweet, something The Bee refused to do on principle. Had Elon Musk not bought Twitter, The Bee would almost certainly still be banned.
Humorless Facebook employees read The Bee’s satire piece during Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing — titled "Senator Hirono Demands ACB Be Weighed Against a Duck to See If She Is a Witch." Facebook quickly decided the article "incited violence" and refused to change its position.
A few months ago, YouTube flagged The Bee as a "violent criminal organization" because it questioned censorship (apparently failing to see the irony). YouTube removed its video "If the LEAKED Nashville Shooter Manifesto is legit, what does it say about censorship in the US?" Even after appealing this mischaracterization of the video’s content, YouTube held firm.
But this isn’t just The Bee’s problem. Far from it.
Big-Tech-driven censorship also impacts religious Americans whose faith animates traditional views on many topics of intense political debate. Social media has repeatedly kicked organizations off their platforms for supporting traditional marriage, opposing abortion and questioning transgenderism.
In the past few years, faith-based and pro-life organizations were deplatformed at a nearly weekly rate.
In 2018, Facebook temporarily suspended Pastor Franklin Graham for "hate speech" and "dehumanizing language" because of an old comment on North Carolina’s bathroom law, where Graham said we "need to go back! Back to God. Back to respecting and honoring his commands." Facebook apologized only after immense backlash.
In 2020, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter all censored praise and worship videos posted by Bethel Music’s Sean Feucht, claiming his videos violated "community guidelines."
The same year, YouTube temporarily booted theologian John Piper’s audiobook, "Coronavirus and Christ," for "violating community guidelines."
Social media has also clamped down on pro-life ads from Susan B. Anthony List, Heartbeat International, Live Action, Students for Life, and even pro-life senatorial candidates, all while allowing Planned Parenthood’s pro-abortion political ads without question.
This egregious, one-sided censorship is why we argued in our brief that the Supreme Court should allow states to hold Big Tech to its own rules and provide fair platforms. ....
What’s more, the Texas and Florida laws do not infringe on these corporations’ free speech rights. The laws allow companies to create their own user standards and policies for allowed content. Instead, the laws merely require social media platforms to be accountable. If their user standards discriminate against certain views, users should know that up front.....
====================
Big tech is more like Big Brother. They should be held to a standard. Texas simply wants to know what Big Tech says their rules are and if those rules are being applied fairly. This is going to be a very interesting case to watch in the SCOTUS
