Page:Volokh v. James.pdf/20

 A plain reading of the Hateful Conduct Law shows that Plaintiffs’ argument is without merit. The law imposes liability on social media networks for failing to provide a mechanism for users to complain of “hateful conduct” and for failure to disclose their policy on how they will respond to complaints. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 394-ccc(5). The law does not impose liability on social media networks for failing to respond to an incident of “hateful conduct”, nor does it impose liability on the network for its users own “hateful conduct”. The law does not even require that social media networks remove instances of “hateful conduct” from their websites. Therefore, the Hateful Conduct Law does not impose liability on Plaintiffs as publishers in contravention of the Communications Decency Act.
 * III. Balance of the Equities

Finally, given that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claims, the Court must consider whether “the balance of the equities tips in [Plaintiffs’] favor, and [whether] an injunction is in the public interest.” ACLU v. Clapper, 804 F.3d 617, 622 (2d Cir. 2015).

Given that “enjoining enforcement of a statute that potentially violates citizens’ constitutional rights is in the public interest”, and that Defendant can show no harm as a result of being prevented from enforcing an unconstitutional statute, the Court finds that the balance of the equities tips in favor of granting the preliminary injunction. See CompassCare, 465 F. Supp. 3d at 159.

Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 394-ccc. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the pending motion at ECF No. 8.