{"id":275321,"date":"2026-06-23T15:06:12","date_gmt":"2026-06-23T15:06:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/275321\/"},"modified":"2026-06-23T15:06:12","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T15:06:12","slug":"new-york-online-hate-speech-law-clears-first-amendment-hurdle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/275321\/","title":{"rendered":"New York Online Hate Speech Law Clears First Amendment Hurdle"},"content":{"rendered":"

A New York law requiring social media companies to deter hate speech on their platforms likely doesn\u2019t violate the First Amendment because companies aren\u2019t required to adhere to the state\u2019s definition of \u201chateful conduct,\u201d the state\u2019s high court concluded Tuesday.<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeals\u2019 ruling will affect how the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit proceeds with a federal lawsuit brought against the state by legal blogger Eugene Volokh and Peter Thiel-backed video site Rumble Inc. They alleged the law unconstitutionally regulates social media company speech by requiring them to establish policies and procedures that adhere to the state\u2019s definition. The state, however, argued the law doesn\u2019t require companies to adhere to or even reference the state\u2019s definition of hateful conduct.<\/p>\n

Rather than compelling networks to specifically address hateful content, the statute provides that a company\u2019s disclosure must include only how it will respond to reports of hateful conduct on its platform, Judge Anthony Cannataro said<\/a>. That requirement \u201ccan be met without explicit reference to the statutory definition of \u2018hateful conduct,\u2019\u201d as long as the network\u2019s explanation is broad enough to encompass content falling within the law\u2019s definition, Cannataro said.<\/p>\n

If companies can comply with the law without fully adopting the state\u2019s definition of hateful conduct, then the statute ultimately survives constitutional scrutiny, the Second Circuit said in its order certifying the questions<\/a> to the state court.<\/p>\n

The law, which was enjoined by a federal district court judge more than two years ago for potentially infringing on free speech, was enacted in December 2022 after Payton Gendron shot and killed 10 people and injured several others at a Buffalo supermarket located in a predominantly Black neighborhood. He livestreamed the attack, but the stream was disrupted after a user flagged the video.<\/p>\n

The law defines \u201chateful conduct\u201d as content that\u2019s used to humiliate or incite violence against a group based on race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation.<\/p>\n

The plain language of the statute doesn\u2019t require networks to explain or publicize its reporting mechanisms with reference to the law\u2019s definition of hateful conduct. It only states that the mechanism itself be clear and accessible to users, and doesn\u2019t require it be provided solely for users to report hateful conduct, Cannataro said.<\/p>\n

The law also doesn\u2019t require social media companies to adopt any specific policies on responding to reports of hateful content, Cannataro said.<\/p>\n

Taken together, the law\u2019s requirements \u201cfacilitate users\u2019 speech by giving them a channel to express complaints, and compel transparency by networks rather than endorsement,\u201d the court said.<\/p>\n

Judge Michael J. Garcia, in a partial dissent, said the majority can\u2019t excise the definition of \u201chateful conduct\u201d from the plain text of the statute. The \u201cuncertainty created by the majority\u2019s distortion of the statute increases the risk of arbitrary and abusive enforcement,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Chief Judge Rowan D. Wilson and Judges Jenny Rivera and Shirley Troutman joined the majority. Judges Madeline Singas and Caitlin J. Halligan joined Garcia\u2019s dissent.<\/p>\n

Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP represent Volokh and Rumble.<\/p>\n

The case is Volokh v. James<\/a>, N.Y., No. CTQ-2025-00006, opinion 6\/23\/26.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A New York law requiring social media companies to deter hate speech on their platforms likely doesn\u2019t violate…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":275322,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[105917,7148,9,11,10,4015],"class_list":["post-275321","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-new-york","tag-firearm-crime","tag-freedom-of-speech","tag-new-york","tag-new-york-headlines","tag-new-york-news","tag-social-media"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/275321","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=275321"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/275321\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/275322"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=275321"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=275321"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=275321"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}