When you tell people they won’t be held accountable for their actions, it almost always ends badly. That’s what’s happened with our police and our social media, two institutional pillars of personal and political society in America today. Removing those dual immunities could dramatically change—for the better—the lives of millions of Americans.
For police, the doctrine of “qualified immunity” first took hold in 1967 in the Supreme Court case Pierson v. Ray, when it was used “to shield white police officers from a lawsuit they faced for enforcing segregation,” as the Princetonian editorial board wrote recently.
In Pierson v. Ray, a group of black and white clergymen who supported racial integration sued the police for arresting their members for violating segregation rules and sitting in a “white[s] only” part of a bus station in Jackson, Mississippi, in 1961.
The Supreme Court concluded that the police largely had immunity from being sued because the arrests were made in “good faith.” (The Supreme Court also said in Pierson v. Ray that those officers were not expected to predict that the Supreme Court would decide in the 1965 case of Thomas v. Mississippi that whites-only areas were unconstitutional.)
The Reagan Revolution brought a huge expansion of the doctrine when, in 1982, the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald redefined and expanded the immunity granted to any government employee, in a case involving former members of the Nixon administration.
While the Supreme Court never mentioned police in that decision, as government employees the police gained the same immunity given by the court to members of the executive and legislative branches of government.
The result of these decisions—examples of the Supreme Court essentially making law, as Congress has only occasionally weighed in on any of these issues—is that police in America routinely get away with murder and egregious violence.
The Supreme Court may, in the next week or two, take up a case that will examine this doctrine as it specifically applies to police; they have several such cases before them, and will probably choose at least one of them to base their ruling on.
Meanwhile, immunity is also helping out the internet oligarchs.
At the same time cops are flashing white power signs and killing black people at a rate 3.5 times greater than they are killing white people, Facebook and other social media sites are providing a safe haven for killer cops and white supremacists to hang out and promote violence.
They can do this because Congress, trying to jumpstart the internet, gave immunity to the owners and operators of websites where other people could post their own opinions, comments and rants.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, essentially says that the owners of services like Facebook and Twitter have very, very little responsibility for what people say—or what they do as the result of what they or others say—on their message boards or systems.
As a result, social media has become a sewer of lies, propaganda and the incitement of violence. (Although they do generally moderate and block copyright violations; protecting property rights is a far higher priority for these companies and the law than protecting personal rights, group safety, or democracy.)
It wasn’t always this way.
Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, I ran a small business that provided “moderating” services to CompuServe, which at first, along with AOL, pretty much was the internet.
We oversaw nearly 30 message boards devoted to a variety of topics from tech support for desktop publishing, Macs and PCs to ADHD, UFOs and the Kennedy assassination. A compilation of one of our message boards, published as the book Think Fast!, even won a national tech award and was put into an exhibition at the Smithsonian celebrating the emerging internet.
We had more than 40 people working from home all around the world, and CompuServe paid our company well for our work. We didn’t get rich from doing this as we were paying most of our employees (there were a few volunteers), but for about a decade we made a very comfortable middle-class living.
The reason CompuServe paid us to do this—and AOL was paying their own group of subcontractors to moderate their boards—was that CompuServe didn’t want to get sued if somebody posted something slanderous, obscene, or inciting violence on their platform.
Additionally, there was no anonymity: everybody who posted had to have verified their identity with a credit card (CompuServe charged a small monthly membership fee), and people who broke those rules were quarantined or outright banned from our boards. (Today this could be done via IP addresses or other means that don’t require money.)
Section 230, however, gave the owners and managers of CompuServe and AOL, and later Facebook, Twitter, 4Chan and pretty much every other site on the web, immunity from lawsuit. It was, for Zuckerberg et al., the equivalent of the Harlow v. Fitzgerald decision’s immunity grant to police.
Thus, today social media companies are spending millions of dollars a week to keep Section 230 in place so they won’t have to hire people like me and my old colleagues to keep their message boards clean and honest.
This is not an issue of censorship, by the way—Facebook and Twitter are already censoring posts on their platforms daily, based not on federal law or what’s best for democracy, but on their own internal rules, referred to as their “terms of service.” Facebook, for example, has given Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller (among others)—a site that publishes people who traffic in climate denial and anti-Semitism and is notoriously pro-Trump—the power to decide which posts are fact and which are fiction, which will be taken down and which will persist.
Instead, it’s an issue of money. If Facebook, Twitter et al. were held responsible for what people post on their sites, it would cost them a fair amount of money to hire thousands of people to keep their boards clean.
Instead of being worth $85 billion, Zuckerberg may end up only being worth $80 billion, no doubt a crushing blow.
The internet has changed a lot since 1996, when CompuServe pretty much quit paying our company to moderate their boards because they no longer had liability for things said there.
Holding companies like Twitter and Facebook to the same liability standards that every newspaper or radio and TV station in America today faces will not end their business model or wipe out their profitability.
Similarly, holding police to the standards of responsibility and decency they faced at law (although often unenforced) prior to 1982 won’t end policing or wipe out their ability to keep our communities safe.
But both will go a long way toward improving Americans’ quality of life and saving our republic.
Solving these giant systemic issues require that people vote! The lack of voter participation has allowed us to suffer so much devastation to our democracy every time a rogue leader is put in office. Let's hope for giant crowds not just protesting injustice but also marching into the ballot boxes come November!
America is NOT a democracy. It's a nice "show" of one. They teach you in civics class the legitimately elected mayor runs the police force. Another American LIE. In reality the PBA and SBA run the police force. Mayors quiver. Police Unions should be ILLEGAL. They make enough money and perks as it is.
I see where this is coming from, but I also see serious problems with the proposed remedy, and I think it ignores a deeper cause of the problem.
Social media are not newspapers. The basic rationale for treating them differently, that the content is not what they are saying but what others are saying, is valid and more importantly involves the rights of the people actually talking. There is a sense in which legislating what you are allowed to say on Facebook is much the same as regulating what you are allowed to say in person or via email. Which isn't the same as saying no limits--there are limits on personal speech, but they are not the same limits that should be faced by newspapers.
And whatever the limits on individual speech, I'm not sure private corporations like Facebook should be allowed to impose them. I'm not at all convinced they should be able to do all the censorship and manipulation they do now, and what you're proposing would result more in them gaining greater power than greater accountability. (Really, I don't think something like Facebook should be privately owned at all; decisions on governance and moderation should be made by some combination of users, employees and government.)
The result of something like this is that almost all questioning of free market orthodoxy and other corporate-friendly ideas would be defined as "fake", with Facebook not merely allowed but in a position to claim to be legally obligated to quash them. On the plus side, there would be less swearing.
But in any case, the root cause of the prevalence of vicious ideologies on Facebook is not really Joe Average poster. Sure, they'd be able to manage some of that on their own, but what really needs to be regulated is public relations spending--all those "think tanks", PR firms and fake grassroots organizations funded by vicious billionaires like the remaining Koch brother. That's what generates all that fake news in the first place, amplifies it with armies of bots and sock puppets, and targets it insidiously based on research and information gathered through ruthless invasion of privacy. Leave those in place and they will adapt to whatever rules are put in, better than penniless real grassroots groups and individuals.