Kline & Specter, Citing Hate Speech Concerns, Halts Advertising on Facebook
Founding partner Shanin Specter said that some of the recent communications from President Donald Trump and his campaign motivated his firm to make the decision.
July 02, 2020 at 04:59 PM
4 minute read
High-profile Philadelphia personal injury firm Kline & Specter has joined hundreds of companies that have decided to halt advertising on Facebook, due to concerns about the social media platform's publication of hate speech and misinformation.
Kline & Specter says the firm does not want to support Facebook financially, and was also "impressed" by other large companies pausing their Facebook advertising—though the firm said it made its decision independently of those companies.
"We decided to pause our Facebook and Instagram advertising, due to Facebook's current policy on hate speech and related issues," said founding partner Shanin Specter.
"We do not think Facebook cares what we do, but we care what we do, and to whatever extent others are influenced by what we do, we hope they join us," he said.
Asked if the firm expects business losses because of the decision, Specter replied, "Yes, significant." But he hopes other firms will follow suit, he said.
Specter said that some of the recent communications from President Donald Trump and his campaign motivated his firm to make the decision.
"In recent weeks, I have felt repetitively that Facebook has been far too permissive in publishing hate speech and other communications that no responsible publisher would publish," he said.
Other platforms, such as Twitter, have taken a more balanced approach to what their platforms will allow, Specter said.
Facebook has its own policies in place to regulate content and user interaction, but many are calling for more action, and even public regulation, to prevent hate speech and misinformation, reports have said.
"Facebook is a publisher, and they should be no different than ALM"—which owns The Legal Intelligencer—"or The Philadelphia Inquirer, yet they permit their platforms to be used to publish communications that no responsible publisher would publish," Specter added.
"Facebook hides behind the Communications Decency Act (CDA) passed in 1996, in particular the immunity provision, which should be abrogated. And they hide behind the First Amendment, which is baloney, because they are not the government—they are a private business that is not required to accept communications on their platforms," he explained.
Section 230 of the CDA provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users. "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider," according to the act.
Users create the content that goes on social media platforms, although Facebook does exercise editorial control over the content.
"Using artificial intelligence, Facebook could monitor their posts for hate speech, and they choose not to," Specter said.
Specter argues that the CDA should be amended "to provide for civil liability for Facebook and other internet platforms for publishing communications that violate the legal rights of others, such as hate speech, defamation and revenge porn."
A CNN Business analysis of Facebook's top advertisers reported that most of the 100 biggest ad spenders on the platform have not paused advertising. Only three of the 25 largest spenders on Facebook ads—Microsoft, Starbucks and Pfizer—have announced plans to pause their advertisements.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was quick to dismiss the campaign for policy changes.
"We're not gonna change our policies or approach on anything because of a threat to a small percent of our revenue, or to any percent of our revenue," said Zuckerberg, according to The Information.
"My guess is that all these advertisers will be back on the platform soon enough," he said, according to The Information.
Several civil rights groups are supporting the campaign.
According to a statement on the NAACP website, "The NAACP is concerned with Facebook's recent tone-deaf response to the growing outcry over its platform's inaction against hate. While Facebook claims to support 'free speech,' in actuality, they are allowing hate speech to run rampant."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Forgotten Ballot: Expanding Voting Access for Incarcerated Populations
5 minute readRemembering Am Law 100 Firm Founder and 'Force of Nature' Stephen Cozen
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 2Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 3Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
- 4Husch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
- 5In Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250