New York's top court signals support for a law requiring social platforms to accept user complaints about hateful conduct, even if the speech is protected by the First Amendment. The decision could impact how platforms handle user reports.
Digital publishers and social platforms operating in New York may soon face new compliance demands after the state's highest court indicated support for a law requiring them to accept user complaints about hateful conduct-including speech protected by the First Amendment. This move could affect editorial workflows, moderation policies, and legal risk for platforms managing user-generated content.
On Tuesday, a four-judge majority on the New York Court of Appeals said the law should be interpreted as mandating only that platforms provide a mechanism for users to report any content, regardless of its viewpoint or subject. The judges clarified that the law does not force platforms to reference the state's definition of "hateful conduct" in their moderation policies or responses to complaints.
The statute, enacted in 2022 following a mass shooting in Buffalo, requires social platforms to offer a reporting tool for "hateful conduct"-defined as content that vilifies, humiliates, or incites violence against groups based on characteristics such as race, religion, or gender identity. It also compels platforms to publicly disclose how they handle such reports.
Rumble and UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh challenged the law in federal court, arguing it infringes on their constitutional right to control what appears on their sites. U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter previously blocked the law, citing First Amendment protections for offensive speech unless it constitutes a true threat. The case then moved to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which asked New York's highest court for guidance on interpreting the statute.
The Court of Appeals majority stated that platforms could comply by offering a generic reporting tool and by disclosing, for example, that they do not remove any content or only act on illegal or violent material. However, three dissenting judges argued the law is unconstitutional, emphasizing that the statute specifically requires a clear tool for reporting "hateful conduct" and criticizing the majority for allowing a generic approach.
The legal battle now returns to the 2nd Circuit, where Rumble and Volokh plan to submit further arguments, including claims that the law is unconstitutionally vague. Their attorney, Robert Corn-Revere, noted that the New York court's opinion addressed only some of their concerns.
This debate over platform accountability and user complaints echoes broader questions about content moderation and public recourse. For example, the UK press regulator IPSO has resolved most complaints in favor of the public, as detailed in a recent report on press complaints outcomes.
