The paper’s first section covers territory relatively familiar to U.S. lawyers concerning the speech Congress can limit under anti-terrorism laws. This law is well-summarized elsewhere, so my discussion is quite brief. The second section explores a less widely understood issue: Congress’s power to hold Internet platforms liable for their users’ speech. The third section ventures farthest afield, reviewing constitutional implications when platforms themselves set the speech rules, prohibiting legal speech under their Terms of Service (TOS). I will conclude that paths forward for U.S. lawmakers who want to both restrict violent extremist content and protect free expression are rocky, and that non-U.S. laws are likely to be primary drivers of platform behavior in this area in the coming years.
Three Constitutional Thickets: Why Regulating Online Violent Extremism Is Hard
September 1, 2019
