XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.fun, alt.politics.democrats.d

In the name of "restoring freedom of speech," FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson wants
to override the editorial judgments of social media platforms.

Jacob Sullum | 5.21.2025 3:15 PM

Today is the deadline for public comments regarding a "public inquiry" by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) into the "potentially illegal" content moderation
practices of social media platforms. As many of those comments note, that investigation impinges on the editorial discretion that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said is protected by the First Amendment.

"Tech firms should not be bullying their users," FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson said when the agency launched its probe in February. "This inquiry will help the
FTC better understand how these firms may have violated the law by silencing and
intimidating Americans for speaking their minds."

Ferguson touts his investigation as a blow against "the tyranny of Big Tech" and
"an important step forward in restoring free speech." His chief complaint is that "Big Tech censorship" discriminates against Republicans and conservatives. But even if that were true, there would be nothing inherently illegal about it.

The FTC suggests that social media companies may be engaging in "unfair or deceptive acts or practices," which are prohibited by Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. To substantiate that claim, the agency asked for examples of deviations from platforms' "policies" or other "public-facing representations" concerning "how they would regulate, censor, or moderate users'
conduct." It wanted to know whether the platforms had applied those rules faithfully and consistently, whether they had revised their standards, and whether they had notified users of those changes.

If platforms fall short on any of those counts, the FTC implies, they are violating federal law. But that position contradicts both the agency's prior understanding of its statutory authority and the Supreme Court's understanding of the First Amendment.

The FTC's authority under Section 5 "does not, and constitutionally cannot, extend to penalizing social media platforms for how they choose to moderate user
content," Ashkhen Kazaryan, a senior legal fellow at the Future of Free Speech, argues in a comment that the organization submitted on Tuesday. "Platforms' content moderation policies, even if controversial or unevenly enforced, do not fall within the scope of deception or unfairness as defined by longstanding FTC precedent or constitutional doctrine. Content moderation practices, whether they
involve the removal of misinformation, the enforcement of hate speech policies, or the decision to abstain from moderating content users don't want to see, do not constitute the type of economic or tangible harm the unfairness standard was
designed to address. While such policies may be the subject of vigorous public debate, they do not justify FTC intervention."

https://reason.com/2025/05/21/the-ftcs-probe-into-potentially-illegal-content-moderation-is-a-blatant-assault-on-the-first-amendment/

The entire "investigation" [translation: witch hunt] is unconstitutional and illegal. Whenever the criminal Nazi filth Trump regime claims to be protecting "free speech," it is in fact attacking it and suppressing it.

--
Every Republiscum/QAnon accusation is, in fact, a confession

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)