This article analyzes current debates over search engine regulation and free speech. In these debates, Google and other companies have relied on the “editorial analogy”: that search results are equivalent to editorial decisions, and thus cannot be regulated without violating freedom of speech. These debates largely focus on analogies to earlier media or the nature of algorithmic judgment. The paper argues that this framing misses key issues relevant to how we think about search engines (and algorithmic decisions in general) and freedom of speech. The paper examines the free speech debates that surrounded media in the 1930s and 1940s in order to: (1) clarify the stakes and politics of the editorial analogy being used today; (2) offer an alternate framing of the debate, that highlights conflicts of expressive interest and asks what it means to participate in the public sphere under conditions of rapid technological and political economic transition.
AnannyMike. 2016. “Toward an Ethics of Algorithms: Convening, Observation, Probability, and Timeliness.” Science Technology & Human Values41 (1): 93–117.
2.
Appellant’s Brief, NBC v. U.S. 1943. U.S. Supreme Court Records and Briefs 1832-1978.” p. 39.
3.
BakerC. Edwin. 2007. “The Independent Significance of the Press Clause Under Existing Law.” Hofstra Law Review35 (3): 955–1026.
4.
BarbasSamantha. 2011. “Creating the Public Forum.” Akron Law Review44 (3): 809–66.
5.
BenjaminLouise. 2001. Freedom of the Air and the Public Interest: First Amendment Rights in Broadcasting to 1935. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.
6.
BenjaminRuha. 2019. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
7.
BilićPaško. 2016. ““Search Algorithms, Hidden Labour, and Information Control.”.” Big Data & Society3 (1): 9.
8.
BlanchardMargaret A.1978. “Press Criticism and National Reform Movements: The Progressive Era and the New Deal.” Journalism History5 (2): 33–55.
9.
BrachaOren. 2014. “The Folklore of Informationalism: The Case of Search Engine Speech.” The Fordham Law Review82 (4): 1629–87.
10.
BrachaOrenPasqualeFrank. 2008. “Federal Search Commission? Access, Fairness and Accountability in the Law of Search.” Cornell Law Review93: 1149–209.
11.
ButschRichard. 2007. The Citizen Audience: Crowds, Publics, and Individuals. New York: Routledge.
12.
CarlsonMatt. 2018. “Automating Judgment? Algorithmic Judgment, News Knowledge, and Journalistic Professionalism.” New Media & Society20 (5): 1755–72.
13.
CitronDanielle Keats. 2015. “Addressing Cyberharassment: An Overview of Hate Crimes in Cyberspace.” Journal of Law, Technology & The Internet6: 1–12.
14.
DavidRabban. 1997. Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, 1970-1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
DurrClifford Judkins. 1944. “Freedom of Speech for Whom?”Public Opinion Quarterly8 (3): 391–406.
17.
ErnstMorris. 1926. “Radio Censorship and the “Listening Millions”.” The Nation, April28, 473.
18.
GillespieTarleton. 2014. “Media Technologies.” In The Relevance of Algorithms, edited by GillespieTarletonBoczkowskiPabloFootKirsten, 167–94. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
GraberMark. 1991. Transforming Free Speech: The Ambiguous Legacy of Civil Libertarianism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
20.
GrimmelmannJames. 2007. “The Structure of Search Engine Law.” Iowa Law Review93: 1–63.
21.
HorwitzRobert B.1991. “The First Amendment Meets Some New Technologies: Broadcasting, Common Carriers, and Cable in the 1990s.” Theory and Society20 (1): 21–72.
LebovicSam. 2016. Free Speech and Unfree News: The Paradox of Press Freedom in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
26.
MacLeishArchibald. 1941. “The Duty of Freedom.” In Freedom of the Press Today, edited by IckesHarold, 187–91. New York, NY: Vanguard Press.
27.
McChesneyRobert. 1993. Telecommunications, Mass Media, and Democracy: The Battle for the Control of U.S. Broadcasting, 1928-1935. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.
NBC v. US. 1942. 47 F. Supp. 940 (S.D.N.Y.)
29.
NBC v. US. 1943. 319 U.S. 190.
30.
NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton. 2021. 573 F. Supp. 3d. 1092 (W.D. Tex.).
31.
NobleSafiya. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York: NYU.
PetersenJennifer. 2022. How Machines Came to Speak: Media Technologies and Freedom of Speech. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
34.
PickardVictor. 2015. America's Battle for Media Democracy: The Triumph of Corporate Libertarianism and the Future of Media Reform. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC. 1969. 395 U.S. 367.
36.
RortyJames.1934. Our Master’s Voice: Advertising. Reprint ed., 1976. New York: Arno Press.
37.
SchauerFrederick. 2002. “First Amendment Opportunism.” In Eternally Vigilant, edited by BollingerLeeStoneGeoffrey, 174–97. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
Search King, Inc. v. Google Tech, Inc. 2003. U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27193 (W.D. Okla.).
39.
SeldesGeorge. 1935. Freedom of the Press. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company.
40.
SmulyanSusan. 1994. Selling Radio: The Commercialization of American Broadcasting, 1920-1934. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
41.
StarrPaul. 2004. The Creation of the Media: Political Origins of Modern Communication. New York: Basic Books.
42.
StarSusan Leigh. 1999. “The Ethnography of Infrastructure.” American Behavioral Scientist43 (3): 377–91.
43.
SteinLaura. 2007. Speech Rights in America. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
44.
VaidhyanathanSiva. 2011. The Googlization of Everything. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
