New York’s Stop Hiding Hate Act — signed into law last year and taking effect this year — is a prime example of how government dresses up an assault on liberty with a feel-good title. In a recent RealClear Markets article, Market Institute Senior Fellow Norm Singleton warns that while the law’s name makes it sound unobjectionable, its substance is a direct threat to free speech.
“Just as the use of titles like the Patriot Act implies that anyone who opposes the bill isn’t a patriot, or that opposition to the Affordable Care Act signals hostility towards affordable care… feel-good titles are used to obscure an assault on liberty.”
Under the Stop Hiding Hate Act, social media companies must file detailed “terms of service” reports with the New York Attorney General.
“These reports must disclose whether the company’s terms of service define terms such as hate speech, racism, extremism, harassment, and foreign political interference. The companies must also submit these definitions to the Attorney General… [and] report how many times they have addressed violations… the nature of the violations, and the actions taken… Any social media company that fails to comply will be subject to fines as high as $15,000 per day.”
Singleton makes clear this isn’t about transparency — it’s about pressuring platforms to enforce speech rules favored by politicians.
“This legislation is an attempt by the New York State government to shame tech companies into increasing their enforcement of terms of service as it relates to discussions of certain topics, words, and phrases. This type of government intrusion into the content policies of private media companies violates the First Amendment.”
While progressive support for such a bill may not surprise, Singleton notes a troubling bipartisan drift toward regulating online speech.
“Most progressives have long since abandoned their iron-clad commitment to free speech in order to ‘stop the spread of hate and extremism.’ What is surprising is that many on the populist right have also endorsed government regulation of social media in order to stop companies from ‘deplatforming’ conservatives.”
He also pushes back on calls to extend the First Amendment to private tech companies.
“The First Amendment, which begins with the words, ‘Congress shall make no law,’ only applies to government… Van Buren and other critics of big tech argue that the First Amendment should apply to private tech companies since the drafters of the Bill of Rights could not have ‘envisioned a day when technology and global corporations would overshadow the power of governments to control information.’”
The real danger, Singleton warns, is government pressure on what can be said online.
“Government officials… pressured social media companies to remove posts challenging the government’s claims about the effectiveness of masks, lockdowns, and vaccines… The answer to bad speech is simply more speech. However, [it is] mistaken… that giving politicians and bureaucrats more power over social media will increase the free flow of information — especially with respect to information challenging the political class’s ‘official’ narrative.”
Singleton’s conclusion leaves no room for doubt:
“The way to ensure the internet fulfills its potential to become the ultimate free speech zone is to separate tech and state.”
