#NetChoice v. Paxton

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ian Millhiser at Vox:

If you spent Monday morning following each of the cases handed down by the Supreme Court, you’re probably experiencing a bit of whiplash.

The biggest news out of the Court on Monday, of course, is a sweeping decision holding that former President Donald Trump was effectively allowed to do crimes while he was in office. Indeed, under the six Republican justices’ decision in Trump v. United States, it is very likely that a sitting president can order the military to assassinate his political rivals without facing any criminal consequences for doing so. Just a few minutes before the Supreme Court handed down its Trump decision, however, it also handed down another case reaffirming that the First Amendment does not permit Republican-led legislatures to seize control of what content is published by media companies. That decision, in Moody v. Netchoice, was 6-3, with three Republican justices who also held that the leader of the Republican Party was allowed to commit many crimes while he was in office joining Justice Elena Kagan’s majority opinion.

So, on the same day that the Supreme Court appears to have established that a sitting president can commit the most horrible crimes imaginable against someone who dares to speak out against him, the same Court — with three justices joining both decisions — holds that the First Amendment still imposes some limits on the government’s ability to control what content appears online. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined both decisions in full. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Netchoice opinion in full, plus nearly all of the Trump decision. [...]

What’s at stake in Netchoice?

Netchoice concerns two state laws, one from Florida and one from Texas, which seek to control what content must be published by major social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube. Both laws were enacted by Republican legislatures, and signed by Republican governors, for the very purpose of forcing these platforms to publish right-leaning content that they would prefer not to publish.

As Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said before signing his state’s law, it was enacted to stop an allegedly “dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas.” The two laws, and especially the Texas law, are extraordinarily broad. Texas’s, for example, prohibits major social media companies from moderating content based on “the viewpoint of the user or another person” or on “the viewpoint represented in the user’s expression or another person’s expression.”

SCOTUS ruled 6-3 in Moody v. NetChoice (and NetChoice v. Paxton) to send it back to lower courts in a case dealing with social media content moderation policies and handed a big but temporary loss to the right-wing misinformation machine.

See Also:

HuffPost: Supreme Court Bounces Back Question On Social Media Moderation

[empiricalscotus]

Taking the Fifth

There are several things that are true about the Fifth Circuit. This includes the six cases from the Fifth Circuit that are already granted for argument before the Supreme Court this term, the most from any circuit so far.  It also includes the six judges that former President Trump appointed to the Circuit.  Then there is the speculative. Some argue that the Fifth Circuit is the most…

[richdadpoor]

Montana Compares Banned TikTok to 'Cancer-Causing Radio'

Montana’s lawsuit-hungry attorney general Austin Knudsen wants US courts to think of TikTok less like a light-hearted home for viral trends and more akin to the harbinger of a life-threatening disease. In recent court filings defending his state’s unprecedented ban on the short-form video app, Knudsen compared TikTok to a “cancer-causing radio,” something he said lawmakers would likewise have a…

[mariacallous]

SCOTUS cases we're still waiting on:

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, No. 22-277 [Arg: 2.26.2024]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the laws’ content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment; and (2) whether the laws’ individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.

NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, No. 22-555 [Arg: 2.26.2024]

Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-, content-, or speaker-based laws restricting select websites from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech — or otherwise burdening those editorial choices through onerous operational and disclosure requirements.

Trump v. U.S., No. 23-939 [Arg: 4.25.2024]

Issue(s): Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

[carlysviewonsocialmedia]

Social Media Marketing

Carly Kelly

The current state of social media ethics: what trends are happening in the industry? (5 pts)  a lot of misinformation is shared on social media to get lots of views and clicks from people who are interested and restricting what someone can post

What are two current cases related to social media ethics? (5 pts) netchoice v. Paxton & O’Connor Ratcliff

Outline the current code of ethics for social media by a professional organization you would be interested in joining as part of their social media staff. (10 pts) I would want to join BMW’s social media page because I work at bmw and I think it would be interesting

What brands are utilizing proper social media ethical practices? (5 pts) some brands are ben & jerrys, lush cosmetics,toms of maine. And microsoft

Are there any professionals that you feel practice strong ethical behavior on social media? (5 pts) health care professionals 

What are some takeaways you can bring forth in your own practices? (10 pts)  empathy and emotional support

What main concepts do you think are necessary to adhere to for your own personal conduct online? (20 pts) use my information wisely and provide credible sources 

What main concepts do you feel strongly against and want to make sure you avoid on social media? (20 pts) using terms like “you wont believe this” and “if i reach this many likes i will tell you the truth of…”. making something sound outrageous to get views.

List 5-10 core concepts that you will follow as a practicing social media professional. Include citations that you used (20 pts)

Use credible sources

Keep posts professional

Use my plate for for positive change

Foster critical thinking

Avoid bias

[billyb]

The AI Conversation: Your Move

Imagine a world where every word is a coin toss.

Heads: truth. Tails: an AI's best guess.

This isn't sci-fi. It's tomorrow's headline.

Unregulated AI isn't just a tech issue. It's a democracy issue.

A human issue.

So what can you do?

Start here:

Demand transparency. Ask your representatives about AI regulation. What's their stance? Their plan?

Support responsible AI. Choose products and platforms that prioritize ethical AI development.

Educate yourself. Learn to spot AI-generated content. Teach others.

Engage in real conversations. IRL. Face-to-face. Remind yourself what genuine human interaction feels like.

Create, don't just consume. Write. Speak. Share your voice. It matters more than ever.

Because democracy?

It's not just a system. It's a conversation.

A global, messy, beautiful conversation that keeps going.

And it needs your voice.

Right now, the Supreme Court is grappling with NetChoice v. Paxton, a case that could reshape how we regulate online speech and AI-driven content moderation.

As we debate whether Texas can force social media platforms to host all viewpoints, we're really asking:

In an AI-dominated landscape, who decides what we see and hear?

The platforms? The government? The AI itself?

Our digital town square hangs in the balance, and with it, the future of our democratic discourse

We're at a crossroads.

One path leads to a cacophony of misinformation.

The other? A symphony of human-AI collaboration.

The choice is ours. But the window is closing.

Every tweet, every post, every conversation shapes our future.

What future are you speaking into existence?

Remember: In the age of AI, our words still count. Our actions echo.

What will your echo be?

Your move.

#regulate #ai

[isfeed]

Supreme Court rules in major internet speech cases

Illustration by Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos via Getty Images On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in two consequential cases about the future of speech on the internet. The Supreme Court vacated the appeals court decisions in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, ruling that neither court adequately analyze whether the social media content moderation laws in Florida and…

[aidan-sousa]

Social Media Policy

Social Media, like anything else, is always evolving and changing. We see how brand and companies react to the changes on social media. A trend that is happening is that brands on twitter, instagram and facebook will post more lighthearted images and videos such as memes related to their product. One current case is Moody vs Netchoice https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-277. This case is still pending and was just created earlier this year. Another current and ongoing case is the Free Speech Coalition vs Paxton https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/free-speech-coalition-v-paxton/ . This case is also currently ongoing as well. The ongoing issue according to Scotusblock.com is "Whether the Supreme Court should stay the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s judgment allowing Texas to enforce the age verification requirements of H.B. 1181 on commercial websites that contain sexual content." I looked at Instagram's code for ethics on social media https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/instagram-community-guidelines-faqs#:~:text=Illegal%20Content%20%E2%80%93%20We%20don't,the%20targeting%20of%20private%20individuals. Some basic rules are no nudity, hate speech/bullying, no violence, and praising of terrorism or violence either.

One brand who constantly good social media practices is Patagonia https://medium.com/@vmcgowan/how-patagonia-is-doing-social-media-right-b3bc6e1b06d7. One good thing that they do is that they post photos that people have sent to them wearing their brand or supporting their brand. Patagonia is also a brand that supports the environment. One professional that practices good social media ethics is Jayson Tatum https://www.instagram.com/jaytatum0/. Jayson is someone that any kid can look up to as a good influence and it shows on his Instagram. Jayson is the top player for the Celtics so he knows that he will always be looked at heavily in the public eye. All of his posts are just pictures of him on the court playing, pictures of him with friends and teammates and pictures of him with his kid. All of these posts are very harmless and anyone can go on his account without getting offended at all by anything. Some takeaways to get from his posts are that when you are a celebrity, it is important to know that everything that is posted will instantly be seen for everyone to see forever because that post will be screenshotted by people right away. This same rule can be applied to everyone that uses social media and you really have to careful and think over what you are about to post.

Colorado State University put up a great article on the rules of the internet and how to conduct yourself https://coursedesign.colostate.edu/obj/corerulesnet.html . Some obvious ones that are on here is to respect everyone and remember that the person on the other side of the screen is also a human. Another key thing is to treat another person as you would if you were talking to them in real life. Another important key is to remember to respect everyone else's privacy.

Some core concepts to follow when online that I would like to use

Respect privacy

Be respectful and not to use offensive language publicly

Always be careful of who you accept on friends lists

Make sure you double check everything you post

Remember there is another person on the other side of the screen

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ian Millhiser at Vox:

No matter how bad the Supreme Court gets, it can always get worse. This reality will be on full display this week, when the justices return for the Court’s new term. Indeed, on October 3, the second day of that term, the Court will hear a case where the far-right United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declared an entire federal agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, unconstitutional. In the unlikely event that the justices uphold this decision, a brief filed by the banking industry explains to the Supreme Court, the entire US mortgage market could seize up, as banks will have no idea what rules they need to comply with in order to issue loans. Worse, because home building, home resale, and related industries make an estimated 17 percent of the US gross domestic product, such a decision risks economic devastation unheard of since the Great Depression.

And this case, known as CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association, is one of at least six cases the Court will most likely decide this term where Fifth Circuit judges issued legally indefensible decisions that will have calamitous results if they are not reversed. That court, which is dominated by the most reactionary Trump appointees and similarly minded judges, has become the forum of choice for litigants pushing preposterous legal arguments that are unlikely to fly elsewhere, even in a very conservative judiciary. By next June, the Supreme Court is likely to toss out a Fifth Circuit decision nuking the federal government’s power to prevent companies from defrauding investors, as well as a Fifth Circuit decision which allows Texas’s GOP-controlled legislature to seize control of content moderation at social media sites like Twitter or YouTube. The Supreme Court is also likely to reverse a Fifth Circuit decision holding that people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders — meaning that a court has determined that they are a violent threat to their romantic partner or their partner’s child — have a constitutional right to possess a gun.

[...]

And, on top of these three cases, which the Court has already agreed to hear in its upcoming term, it will also likely take up two other cases where the Fifth Circuit took leave of its senses: Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, which attempts to ban the abortion medication mifepristone; and Doe v. McKesson, which effectively strips political organizers of their First Amendment right to organize a protest. At least for now, in other words, the Court’s upcoming term could potentially be very different from the two that proceeded it, where the Court’s GOP-appointed majority seemed to be on a mission to seek out longstanding precedents that are out of favor within the Republican Party, and destroy them. Those decisions appear to have emboldened the most reactionary voices within the judiciary, leaving the justices with a whole lot of messes to clean up.

Which is not to say that Democrats will have much to celebrate when the justices leave town again next June. Many of the Fifth Circuit’s decisions are so poorly reasoned, and so destructive of the interests of the United States, that it would be genuinely shocking if a majority of the justices sign onto them. The Supreme Court will deserve no credit for moderation simply for reversing these decisions. That is, if it does reverse them. The Supreme Court is still dominated by conservative Republicans, three of whom were appointed by Donald Trump. So there’s always some risk that a majority of the justices will accept even the most outlandish arguments by their fellow Republican appointees on the Fifth Circuit. Meanwhile, the Court will hear at least one case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, involving a legal doctrine reviled by the conservative Federalist Society. Loper Bright asks the justices to overrule something known as the “Chevron doctrine,” which limits the power of the federal judiciary (currently controlled by the Republican Party) to overrule decisions made by the executive branch (currently led by a Democrat). Additionally, the Court will hear cases that could weaken many civil rights laws, and that could invigorate racial gerrymandering. And it’s likely that the Court will take up one or more cases involving state laws that target transgender youth before the upcoming term is complete.

The Fifth Circuit’s CFPB decision could trigger a global economic depression if it is upheld by the justices

Congress created the CFPB two years after a toxic mix of unwise mortgages and unsafe financial assets threw both the US housing market and US lending markets into turmoil. As the Supreme Court has explained, the CFPB “has the sole responsibility to administer 19 separate consumer-protection statutes that cover everything from credit cards and car payments to mortgages and student loans.” Many of these statutes are longstanding banking regulations and consumer protections that were previously overseen by other agencies — that authority was transferred to the CFPB by the 2010 law creating the agency. Though the primary purpose of the CFPB is to protect consumers from potentially abusive behavior by banks and other lenders, it also provides an important service to the banking industry itself. In the last dozen or so years, the agency has promulgated various rules telling lenders how to comply with their obligations under federal law — laying out which disclosures lenders must make to borrowers, and providing a “safe harbor” to banks that issue loans below a certain rate.

Without these rules in place, the mortgage industry warns in a brief to the justices, lenders and other players in this industry simply would not know how to comply with the law. “This would leave market participants unable to certify compliance and invite challenges relating to past certifications, representations, and warranties,” the brief explains. “As a result, the mortgage market could grind to a halt.” And if it did, it could very well bring the rest of the global economy down with it. Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Community Financial Services v. CFPB, a case the Supreme Court will hear in October, invites all of these catastrophic consequences and more. The Fifth Circuit’s decision claims that the mechanism Congress used to fund the CFPB is unconstitutional, a decision that would potentially invalidate everything the agency has ever done because it would mean that the CFPB was not allowed to spend a single dollar on anything, including hiring regulators to write lending rules.

[...] One consequence of Bruen is the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, which struck down a federal law prohibiting individuals from “possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order.” That is, the Fifth Circuit held that people who have been determined, by a court, to be a violent threat to their romantic partner or their partner’s child have a constitutional right to own a gun.

The most alarming thing about this decision is that it is far from clear that the Fifth Circuit was wrong in Rahimi, at least if you accept Bruen as legitimate. Domestic violence certainly existed before the 19th century, but no state made assaulting one’s spouse a crime until 1871, when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that a husband and wife “may be indicted for assault and battery upon each other.” A responsible Supreme Court would recognize that Bruen is unworkable, and seize upon the Rahimi case as an opportunity to overrule it. Realistically, however, that outcome is unlikely. That said, several of the Court’s Republican appointees have endorsed creating categorical carveouts to the Second Amendment for individuals who are potentially a threat to others. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, supports “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote, when she was still a lower court judge, that “legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns.” [...]

We may find out what the justices actually think about voting rights

One year ago, if the Supreme Court were planning to hear Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, an appeal of a lower court’s decision striking down a racially gerrymandered congressional district in South Carolina, that would have been a cause of considerable alarm for anyone who supports liberal democracy in the United States. Until recently, the Court’s Republican-appointed majority appeared quite hostile toward the right to vote, and especially toward the right to be protected from race discrimination at the polls. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), for example, the Court’s Republicans ruled that a key provision of the Voting Rights Act violates “‘fundamental principle of equal sovereignty’ among the States,” a principle that appears nowhere in the Constitution, and that seems to have been made up solely to attack this one provision of law. Similarly, in Brnovich v. DNC (2021), the Court’s Republicans simply invented a bunch of new limits on the Voting Rights Act, such as a strong presumption that voting restrictions that were commonplace in 1982 are lawful, that appear nowhere in any law or in the Constitution. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, Brnovich “mostly inhabits a law-free zone.” [...]

The Court could concentrate even more power within the Republican-controlled judiciary

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court will decide whether to overrule its seminal decision in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council (1984), which held that courts should defer to an agency’s reading of federal law if it is unclear whether the agency had the legal authority to promulgate a particular regulation. Chevron typically required judges to defer to policymaking decisions by agencies, regardless of whether those decisions involved major or minor questions. So decisions like Nebraska have already overruled Chevron with respect to the most consequential actions by agencies.

Loper Bright, in other words, tees up the question of whether the courts will have the final word on pretty much every policy question that Congress intended a federal agency to resolve. If Chevron is overruled, the GOP-controlled federal judiciary will gain the power to micromanage virtually any policy decision made by officials within the Biden administration, including small-bore decisions that do not fit within the so-called major questions doctrine. As a practical matter, that would make the United States government both less democratic and less competent. The Chevron decision was grounded in two insights. One is that “judges are not experts” in the kind of specialized and technical questions that often come before federal agencies. So, if we give too much regulatory authority to judges, we’re going to wind up with a very poorly governed nation. [...] In Moore v. United States, the plaintiffs ask the justices to rule that the Constitution effectively forbids taxation of unrealized assets. The case was brought by investors who want a refund on taxes they paid on a foreign investment, but Moore is widely viewed as a stalking horse against the sort of wealth taxes supported by many Democrats. [...]

Testers are an important part of civil rights enforcement because they can smoke out discrimination that might otherwise go undetected. Ordinarily, if a family inquires about renting an apartment and is told that none are available, they are likely to simply walk away. And, even if they suspect discrimination, how are they to prove it unless they happen to know about a family of another race that received contradictory information from the same landlord?

But this term the Court will hear a case brought by a self-described “tester,” Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, which seriously tests the limits of constitutional standing. The plaintiff in Acheson Hotels is a woman who, according to the defendant’s brief, has “sued over 600 hotels ... claiming that they failed to post accessibility information on their websites,” in violation of a federal regulation that requires hotels to inform potential customers of whether their rooms are accessible to disabled people. (The regulation does not actually require the rooms to be accessible, but it is intended to prevent disabled patrons from booking a room and traveling to a distant town, only to learn that their room is inaccessible to them.) Significantly, this plaintiff apparently has no intention of actually staying in any of these hotels. As a constitutional matter, this plaintiff should not have standing to sue all of these hotels. The Supreme Court has long held that a party filing a federal lawsuit must allege a “particularized” injury, meaning that they must have been injured in some way that is specific to the plaintiff, and that is not shared in common by the general public. But the plaintiff in Acheson Hotels does not allege any kind of particularized injury. She merely alleges she is unable to find information online that is also unavailable to everyone else in the world.

The new Supreme Court term has begun, and there are key cases that will be on the docket that will likely get decided this term.

Some key cases:

CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association: the case that determines the legality of the CFPB.

Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA: the case that could determine whether mifepristone is legal.

United States v. Rahimi: the case that an individual possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order is lawful or not.

Alexander v. NAACP: the case that struck down a racially gerrymandered Congressional district in South Carolina by a lower court.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo: the case that could determine the fate of the Chevron doctrine.

Moore v. United States: the case that could ban wealth taxes.

Acheson Hotels v. Laufer: the case that could significantly change the limits of constitutional standing and ban testers.

At least one case on state laws targeting trans youth could also be taken up by the time this term ends.

See Also:

Daily Kos: Here are the crucial cases before the Supreme Court this year

[fiiresiidefrfr]

Little need-to-know update for today:

The Supreme Court is hearing two cases involving internet moderation on Social Media sites:

- Moody v. Netchoice, LLC. (Florida case; Banning political candidates, such as Trump, and "journalistic enterprises")

- Netchoice, LLC. v. Paxton (Texas case; Moderating practices on social media)

If both of these cases go against Netchoice, then moderation on Social Media sites such as this one will be heavily restricted by law, and allow for more hate messages to be spread with little consequence.

I do not believe that the Moody case will make it, as prior SC cases involving other mediums have allowed publishing companies to pick and choose what and whose content they publish.

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) prevented newspapers from having to offer equal access and treatment to political candidates when responding to editorial articles. If we're using the same logic with Moody, then social media sites shouldn't be forced to give political candidates equal access if they believe that one of them are breaking their terms of service.

As for Paxton, there's no prior legal cases to really utilize, since content moderation hasn't been heard by the SC. This is the case that would primarily allow more hate speech, since mods of SM sites would be heavily restricted in their moderation of individual users. Because of this, I could see this case going either way.

Also, little update: they've now spent the last 11 minutes discussing the Tide Pod challenge as evidence, which is a head trip to say the least.

[pennsylvaniaprelawland-blog]

Gonzalez V. Google Questions The Liability Of Social Media Platforms With Respect To Terrorism

By Morgan Polen, University of Pittsburgh Class of 2025

October 28, 2022

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) has unquestionably been one of the most consequential pieces of legislation ever passed with respect to technological platforms and the Internet. It states that “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” [5]. In layperson’s terms, the platform/website per se cannot be held liable for the speech and/or content of one of its users. For example, if someone goes on Twitter and posts a defamatory statement, the target of said statement can sue the defamator but not Twitter. It’s also worth noting that Section 230 does not apply to intellectual property-rooted claims and criminal claims [5].

This provision of the CDA is especially crucial in an era where much controversy regarding the discretion of big tech looms over the world of jurisprudence. The issue in the case at hand involves Nohemi Gonzalez, one of the many victims claimed by the terrorist attacks inflicted by ISIS in Paris in 2015. Gonzalez’s family sued Google, owner of YouTube, under the Antiterrorism Act for “promoting” a wave of violent videos and breeding an environment conducive to ISIS members and supporters [2] [4]. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit argued that Section 230 protects the algorithms that are employed to promote such content. The majority did conclude that Congress, not the courts, should be the entity determining Section 230’s reach. However, the ruling produced multiple dissents, which is why it seems an opportune time for the Supreme Court to entertain this case, especially since it hasn’t ruled on Section 230 since its enactment in 1996 [6].

This case comes at a time where many issues regarding the future of technological volition are coming to fruition. For instance, Florida has recently petitioned the Supreme Court to rule on its contentious law, SB7072, which, if upheld, would prevent big tech platforms from censoring select content and people (Moody v. NetChoice, LLC). An analogous issue is posited NetChoice v. Paxton, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld Texas’s House Bill 20, which greatly restricts the power of social media platforms to moderate its users; additionally, it imposes certain transparency requirements, which mandates that such platforms clearly state why they chose to take certain content down. The Fifth Circuit ruled that this law did not violate First Amendment provisions because it stifles censorship, not speech [3].

Nevertheless, it’s been widely understood that the First Amendment similarly protects one’s right to stay silent (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943). Does it not then follow that big tech platforms have a right to “stay silent” and thus choose not to comment on its censorship choices?

Gonzalez is hardly an isolated incident. There’s a copious amount of First Amendment-related legislation swirling around, many issues often at-odds with one another. In a society where the freedom of expression is a hallmark, it’s necessary to remember that speech goes, for the most part, unbridled. Underlying Gonzalez is a case of particular salience: Brandenburg v. Ohio, which notedly overturned Schenck v. United States. Brandenburg (1969) clarified that speech is unprotected under the First Amendment only if it produces “imminent lawless action” or if it's “likely to incite or produce such action” [1]. When do the Internet and social media platforms become legally responsible for their users' tangible threats? Only making things cloudier is the fact that one cannot censor speech on the premise that it *might* have the ability to incite violence in the future. In other words, speech cannot be restricted before the fact. For matters involving the extent to which speech influences acts of terrorism, it’s onerous to disentangle the First Amendment from the Antiterrorism Act. Although Gonzalez was originally brought under the Antiterrorism Act, it ostensibly seems that such a First Amendment issue will be raised when SCOTUS reviews it.

Any case handling the First Amendment must be conducted with extreme care, for it only takes one ruling to send us down a vulnerable path of censorship and persecution. The Supreme Court will hear Gonzalez this term.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Brandenburg v. Ohio. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved from www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492.

[2] Howe, A. (2022, October 3). Court agrees to hear nine new cases, including challenge to tech companies’ immunity under Section 230. Scotusblog. Retrieved from www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/court-agrees-to-hear-nine-new-cases-including-challenge-to-tech-companies-immunity-under-section-230/.

[3] Jurecic, Q. (2022, September 16). Fifth Circuit upholds Texas social media law. Lawfare Blog. Retrieved from www.lawfareblog.com/fifth-circuit-upholds-texas-social-media-law#:~:text=On%20Sept.,and%20imposes%20certain%20transparency%20requirements.

[4] Millheiser, I. (2022, October 6). A new Supreme Court case could fundamentally change the internet. Vox. Retrieved from www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/10/6/23389028/supreme-court-section-230-google-gonzalez-youtube-twitter-facebook-harry-styles.

[5] Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. (n.d.). Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved from www.eff.org/issues/cda230.

[6] Willard, L., Xenakis, N., Cooper-Ponte, A., & Salinas, M. (2022, October 5). Supreme Court grants certiorari in Gonzalez v. Google, marking first time court will review Section 230.

Inside Privacy.Retrieved from

www.insideprivacy.com/uncategorized/supreme-court-grants-certiorari-in-gonzalez-v-google-marking-first-time-court-will-review-section-230-2/

[snbc]

Thoughts on Internet Content Moderation from Spending Thousands of Hours Moderating Volokh Conspiracy Threads

Thoughts on Internet Content Moderation from Spending Thousands of Hours Moderating Volokh Conspiracy Threads

Reading the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Netchoice v. Paxton brings me back to the old days of the Volokh Conspiracy.  A little bit of context: Back when we were at volokh.com, we introduced open comment threads. For a few years, I spent over an hour a day, every day, moderating Volokh Conspiracy comment threads.  I stopped after we moved to The Washington Post in 2014, where comment moderation…

[isfeed]

Texas has teed up a Supreme Court fight for the future of the internet

Texas has teed up a Supreme Court fight for the future of the internet

Photo by Erin Schaff-Pool / Getty Images Late last week, a US court effectively declared social media moderation illegal in Texas. The ruling doesn’t change anything for now. But it just set the stage for a Supreme Court decision that could transform the internet. And with that context… it’s remarkably bad. The case I’m talking about is NetChoice v. Ken Paxton, a fight over a law called HB 20,…