• by Wendy Davis , June 24, 2026

A majority of judges on New York's highest court signaled this week that they would uphold a law requiring social platforms to accept complaints about offensive speech -- including speech protected by the First Amendment.

In an opinion issued Tuesday, four judges on the state Court of Appeals said they interpret the law as merely requiring platforms to merely to accepts reports about any subject -- without regard to content or viewpoint.

Three judges disagreed, suggesting in a written dissent that they believe the law is unconstitutional.

The statute, passed in 2022 after a white supremacist killed 10 Black people at a grocery store in Buffalo, specifically requires social platforms to offer a reporting mechanism for “hateful conduct" -- defined in the law as using social media to “vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.”

The measure also compels social platforms to publicly post a policy explaining how they will respond to complaints about "hateful conduct."

The video platform Rumble and UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh, who operates the Volokh Conspiracy blog, sued in federal court to strike down the law. They argued that the measure violates their constitutional right to decide what to publish on their sites.

Speech that is racist, sexist or otherwise offensive is generally protected by the First Amendment, as long as it is not considered a "true threat" of violence.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter in the Southern District of New York sided with them and blocked the law on First Amendment grounds.

“The First Amendment protects from state regulation speech that may be deemed 'hateful' and generally disfavors regulation of speech based on its content unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest,” Carter wrote.

New York appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which in turn asked the state's highest court how it would interpret the statute.

The circuit court elaborated that if the law "merely mandates that social media networks disclose their content moderation policies -- whatever they may be -- without requiring those policies to specifically reference or otherwise encompass 'hateful conduct,'" the law would be comparable to other statutes that have been held constitutional."

A four-judge majority of the state Court of Appeals on Tuesday told the federal circuit that the state law does not actually require platforms to reference its definition of "hateful conduct."

Instead, according to the majority, the law only requires platforms to create a tool that can be used "to report anything a user wishes to report."

The majority likewise said the provision requiring platforms to disclose how they respond to reports doesn't require platforms to mention the statute's definition of hateful conduct.

"For example, a network might disclose that out of respect for its users’ freedom of expression, it will not regulate or remove any content posted on its platform," Court of Appeals Judge Anthony Cannataro wrote for the majority. "Such a disclosure would necessarily inform users that the network will do nothing in response to reports falling within the statutory definition of hateful conduct -- or any other content."

He added: "As another example, a network might disclose that it will only remove content that is illegal or threatens violence against others, and not respond to any other reports."

Three dissenting judges suggested the law is unconstitutional.

"'Hateful conduct,' as defined in the statute, is the concern of the law's substantive provisions," Judge Michael Garcia wrote in dissent.

He also noted that the statute itself requires platforms to offer a "clear" tool for people to report "hateful conduct," adding that the majority failed to explain why offering a "generic" reporting tool complies with the law.

"It is not unprecedented for a crisis or horrific act of violence to lead to legislative overreach, however well-intentioned that reaction may be," he wrote. "Our role is not to rewrite such a law or to devise a strategy for avoiding compliance with its suspect terms, but to hold the constitutional line. The majority fails to do that today."

The matter now returns to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which hasn't yet set a schedule for further proceedings.

Attorney Robert Corn-Revere, who represents Volokh and Rumble, tells MediaPost that the challengers will file additional papers urging the 2nd Circuit to strike down the law.

He says the opinion issued this week by the New York Court of Appeals only addressed some of the arguments regarding the law's validity. For instance, he says, even though the Court of Appeals said the law could be interpreted in a content-neutral way, Volokh and Rumble also argue that the statute is too vague to be constitutional.