NEW YORK (Legal Newsline) - New York Attorney General Letitia James is free to send voluntary interrogatories to social media companies, even though a federal judge has ordered an injunction against the state's Hateful Conduct Law.
That law targets online speech and was passed following James' findings that "online platforms should be held accountable for allowing hateful and dangerous content to spread."
Plaintiffs Eugene Volokh, Rumble Canada and Locals Technology obtained a preliminary injunction against the law in 2022, and James appealed. That appeal has been on hold in the Second Circuit while the U.S. Supreme Court considers a related case from Texas, NetChoice v. Paxton.
In the meantime, James sent investigative letters to six social media networks, including Rumble. They sought information on how the companies are handling calls for violence against Jewish an Muslim people and institutions.
Rumble argued these letters violated the injunction that is still in place. Judge Andrew Carter disagreed on April 30.
The interrogatory letters, by their own text, make no reference to the Hateful Conduct Law or its enforcement and do not mandate any response at all or threaten the imposition of penalties for failure to respond," he wrote.
"What's more, the issuance of such voluntary interrogatories falls within the ambit of authority granted to the Attorney General by statutes outside of the Hateful Conduct Law."
Rumble also attempted to show the letters were coercive, not voluntary. James said in a press conference that she would hold social media companies accountable for helping spread dangerous material.
Carter said the letter make no reference to consequences for failing to respond.
"While the interrogatory letters themselves did ask recipients to describe certain policies in detail within eight days of the letter's issuance, they did not do so in a manner which indicated 'persisten[ce] or urgen[cy],'" Carter wrote.
"Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant's office sent any follow-ups to the interrogatories. Rather the record establishes that Defendant rescinded the interrogatory letter upon Plaintiff Rumble's adversarial request."
The Hateful Conduct Law required social media platforms to create a mechanism for users to file complaints about “hateful conduct” and platforms had to disclose their policy for dealing with such complaints.
Plaintiffs sued to block enforcement, arguing it compelled them to speak on an issue they would otherwise remain silent about.
In a February 2023 ruling, Carter largely agreed. He issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the law, saying the plaintiffs had a substantial likelihood of success in knocking it down.
“Although preventing and reducing the instances of hate-fueled mass shootings is certainly a compelling governmental interest, the law is not narrowly tailored toward that end,” the judge wrote. “Banning conduct that incites violence is not protected by the First Amendment, but this law goes far beyond that.”