Page:Volokh v. James.pdf/10

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Case 1:22-cv-10195-ALC Document 29 Filed 02/14/23 Page 10 of 21

application” detailing how the network will “respond and address the reports of incidents of hateful conduct on their platform.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 394-ccc(3). Implicit in this language is that each social media network’s definition of “hateful conduct” must be at least as inclusive as the definition set forth in the law itself. In other words, the social media network’s policy must define “hateful conduct” as conduct which tends to “vilify, humiliate, or incite violence” “on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 394-ccc(1)(a). A social media network that devises its own definition of “hateful conduct” would risk being in violation of the law and thus subject to its enforcement provision.

The gap between the state’s definition of “hateful conduct” and other potential definitions is illustrated by Plaintiffs’ own current content moderation policies. For instance, Rumble reserves the right to unilaterally remove any content that it deems is:

“a) is illegal; b) is pornographic, obscene, or of an adult or sexual nature; c) is grossly offensive to the online community, including but not limited to, racism, anti-semitism and hatred; d) supports or incites violence or unlawful acts; e) supports groups that support or incite violence or unlawful acts; or f) promotes terrorist organizations.”

(Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶ 116 (internal quotations omitted).) The policy does not explicitly pertain to content that vilifies or humiliates, as is defined in the law, and does not explicitly apply to content aimed at a person or group’s “religion”, “disability”, “sexual orientation” or “gender expression”, as is expressly enumerated in the Hateful Conduct Law. For Rumble to be in compliance with the law, it would need to publish a policy expressly indicating that its users have a mechanism to complain about the “hateful conduct” as defined by the Hateful Conduct Law, not removable content as defined by Rumble.

10