Supreme Court set to decide major First Amendment cases for online speech

[Bubbajim]

In context: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases involving opposing state-level rulings regarding censorship of online speech. The hearing raises critical First Amendment issues, and the high court's decision could radically change the future of online discourse.

Are social media and online discussion spaces platforms or publishers? Do they curate online conversations, or are they disinterested parties merely hosting civic discussion? Regulators and political watchdogs have pondered these questions since the early days of the internet. They have become even more prominent with the rise of social platforms like Facebook, X, and YouTube. On Monday, the Supreme Court may provide some answers.

In 2021, social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook banned President Donald Trump's accounts. The move came following years of conservatives saying that online platform holders suppressed their views. The ban almost immediately led some states to enact legislation that would compel platforms to host content that they would otherwise moderate or remove and give explanations for any moderated content. Florida's SB 7072 and HB 20 in Texas are prominent examples.

NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association immediately challenged both laws, arguing that platforms have a right to curate and moderate their spaces as they see fit. The groups also contend that providing detailed explanations for every moderation decision is unreasonably demanding.

Interestingly, these two laws resulted in conflicting outcomes when challenged in state-level courts. Florida successfully defended its legislation. However, NetChoice got the Texas law blocked. So, one federal appellate court said states could restrict content moderation policies, and another ruled the opposite. As such, the states have petitioned the Supreme Court for a decisive answer.

Moody vs. NetChoice and NetChoice vs. Paxton rely on First Amendment arguments from all parties to the challenge. On the one hand, NetChoice and their representation argue that requiring platforms to host content they would otherwise remove is effectively compelled speech, which breaches the platform's First Amendment rights. On the other hand, states contend that social media giants breach users' right to free speech by censoring or banning them. The Supreme Court has agreed to settle the argument.

The outcome of these cases will have dramatic and far-reaching consequences for online discussions and will affect many more than just social media platforms.

"These statutes would deny operators of online platforms editorial control over their own websites and force them to publish speech they do not wish to disseminate," stated the Wikimedia Foundation – owner and operator of Wikipedia – in an amicus brief.

Many other online publishers agree. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, American Booksellers for Free Expression, and the Motion Picture Association co-authored a separate SCOTUS amicus brief supporting online content moderation.

These are landmark cases. The ramifications will be huge, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules. If the justices uphold the platforms' rights to moderate, they set a precedent that could disallow future attempts to regulate those companies to protect an individual's First Amendment rights. Conversely, if the states can dictate how platforms moderate content online, hosting speech suddenly becomes a minefield with inconsistent regulation across state lines, making it virtually impossible to comply within all 50 states.

Image credit: Fred Schilling

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/102014-supreme-court-set-decide-major-first-amendment-cases.html

 

[toooooot]

I think a lot of rational people could witness how silencing the wrong things (that are not illegal) can lead to things going wrong and more wrong. Because that is what they said, we do it for safety and promoting good things.
It did not stay at some middle level, the middle kept moving, left in our case making more
and more things becoming wrong.In earlier times, I accepted some of the limits they did even though
I disagreed. I thought, it is not wrong but I understand their intentions. Then they added few more things, and more. And then one day they do not like to hear that people have believes and ideas how to school their children.
I think children was one of the big turning points. It was for me at least. Because the things that looked very obviously messed up were added to the least most popular platforms seemed to approve and promote.
They were promoting that stuff, but speech against them, oh no, they were making sure no single person could read/listen to.
Let people speak. Let there be stuff that makes people angry and argue with each other.
We do not need corporations to guide us toward goodness.
I find one of the most amusing things about corporations'
attempts was when Google dropped their don't be evil motto.
It is hard. It is easy to control, silence, sell private info etc.
But not being evil is too hard for an honest hard working corporation.

 

[QuaZulu]

One ruling to oversee every implementation of speech is also a challenge. On the one hand, some might say that political speech ought not to be censored (whether I agree with it or not). On the other, those same people might also say that certain speech (particularly bullying and harassment) ought not only be censored but also prosecuted. Is all speech just speech?

 

[hahahanoobs]

One ruling to oversee every implementation of speech is also a challenge. On the one hand, some might say that political speech ought not to be censored (whether I agree with it or not). On the other, those same people might also say that certain speech (particularly bullying and harassment) ought not only be censored but also prosecuted. Is all speech just speech?

I've heard people go as far as saying hate speech is free speech. Might have been a politician that said it, I can't remember.

All I can say is good luck everybody.

 

[WhoCaresAnymore]

The current US administration is absolutely the worst at stifling free speech. It's become incomprehensible that just calling someone by a wrong pronoun (in some areas) can get you arrested. Pure madness! It's destroying the fabric of our society.

 

[Beerfloat]

This seems straightforward. Ain't none of any government's business if platform owners choose to restrict what content they welcome. Goverments have authority to act on content that is illegal in their jurisdiction, and that is all. Forcing anyone to carry specific content is a violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the US First Amendment.

 

[gamerk2]

One ruling to oversee every implementation of speech is also a challenge. On the one hand, some might say that political speech ought not to be censored (whether I agree with it or not). On the other, those same people might also say that certain speech (particularly bullying and harassment) ought not only be censored but also prosecuted. Is all speech just speech?

No. The 1st Amendment is still bound by the exceptions found in English Common Law: Threats against individuals or groups, fighting words, and speech that constitute rebellion (among others) are not protected.

That's why the Amendment specifically states "*the* right to freedom of speech", since it was understood at the time of its writing the rights inherent within the first amendment were simply enshrining English Common Law into the Constitution.

 

[emmzo]

Freedom of speech is void on any private platform, because...duh, it's private not public. It's not like you're yelling in the town square. So, they can moderate all they want. If they want to school you in wokeness, they will. You should just quit whining and leave the said platform. Oh, but then, fewer people if any are going to see your amazing insights and comment on your undeniable "facts". Oh, ok, I see. The Supreme Court should settle that!

 

[ZedRM]

Freedom of speech is void on any private platform, because...duh, it's private not public.

Unless it's open to the public. If the public is openly invited and allowed to make comments(for example, here at Techspot), then free speech laws apply, at least in the U.S.. Too many companies simply don't understand that simple dynamic. It's really sad.

 

[yRaz]

Unless it's open to the public. If the public is openly invited and allowed to make comments(for example, here at Techspot), then free speech laws apply, at least in the U.S.. Too many companies simply don't understand that simple dynamic. It's really sad.

Eh, you sign a contract(EULA) accepting the terms of what you can and cannot talk about. It's not like 4chan where you don't agree to anything before posting.

 

[WhoCaresAnymore]

Eh, you sign a contract(EULA) accepting the terms of what you can and cannot talk about. It's not like 4chan where you don't agree to anything before posting.

Absolutely. If you agree to the terms, they have the right to do whatever they want, within those terms.

 

[passwordistaco]

I've heard people go as far as saying hate speech is free speech. Might have been a politician that said it, I can't remember.

All I can say is good luck everybody.

Please define "hate speech".

 

[Beerfloat]

Unless it's open to the public. If the public is openly invited and allowed to make comments(for example, here at Techspot), then free speech laws apply, at least in the U.S.. Too many companies simply don't understand that simple dynamic. It's really sad.

Everything you said is factually incorrect.

 

[yRaz]

Please define "hate speech".

Making a noise with your mouth in California

 

[Beerfloat]

The current US administration is absolutely the worst at stifling free speech. It's become incomprehensible that just calling someone by a wrong pronoun (in some areas) can get you arrested. Pure madness! It's destroying the fabric of our society.

The topic is red states vs private organizations. Why are you talking about your feels about the federal government?

 

[yRaz]

The topic is red states vs private organizations. Why are you talking about your feels about the federal government?

I'm only speculating, but I'm assuming it is that the federal government is going to be settling a state issue by using the Supreme Court. I can loosely agree that some uniformity across the states in this definition would make things easier.

 

[Beerfloat]

Making a noise with your mouth in California

Meanwhile, in reality, Section 2 of the California Declaration of Rights specifically codifies freedom of speech not just for individuals but for publishers and ‘wire service’.

 

[Beerfloat]

I'm only speculating, but I'm assuming it is that the federal government is going to be settling a state issue by using the Supreme Court. I can loosely agree that some uniformity across the states in this definition would make things easier.

The federal government is not a party in either of these proceedings, though.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Oh this comment section will be fun.

In my mind, this is an open and shut case. The first amendment supercedes any company's will to censor content. If they want to censor, they are a PUBLISHER, not a PLATFORM, and should be subject to the regulations and responsibilities thereof.

"But but but they're a private company they can do what they want" is the normal response. Which is hilariously wrong. A private company cannot decide to not serve black customers or refuse to hire women, per the civil rights act. If that law overrules a company's desire, so does the constitution, which is supposed to rule over EVERYTHING.

 

[yRaz]

The federal government is not a party in either of these proceedings, though.

Supreme Court justices are assigned by president, a part of the federal government. Whether the person knows what judges were appoints by who, idk. Like I said, I'm speculating. Nothing wrong with speculating as long as you disclose you're speculating.

Meanwhile, in reality, Section 2 of the California Declaration of Rights specifically codifies freedom of speech not just for individuals but for publishers and ‘wire service’.

I really dont care about what code California has because I have never been more tight assed than I had been in my trip to San Fran. On the east coast I'm fairly liberal. I had no idea how "conservative" I was until I visited San Fran for a few weeks and had to watch everything I said.

 

[passwordistaco]

The federal government is not a party in either of these proceedings, though.

Not directly.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-blocks-order-curbing-biden-administration-social-media-contacts-2023-10-20/

Twitter Files - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Biden Team's Admission They're Flagging Content to Facebook Sparks Furor

Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday that an estimated 12 people are responsible for producing 65 percent of the anti-vaccine misinformation on social media.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Endymio]

Freedom of speech is void on any private platform, because...duh, it's private not public.

You realize you just owned yourself, right? The crux of this legal case is that states DO have the right to regulate speech on these platforms, whereas it is the platforms themselves that claim that free speech protections apply.

You're also unaware of US Federal Law Title 47 Sec 230, enacted as part of the CDA, which gave private platforms immunity from prosecution for content they publish, under the theory that these platforms did not exercise any sort of editorial control over what did and didn't appear. Those days are long behind us. Major platform like FB are actively promoting content that fits a certain agenda, while going to great lengths to censor and suppress others.

 

[Beerfloat]

Oh this comment section will be fun.

In my mind, this is an open and shut case. The first amendment supercedes any company's will to censor content. If they want to censor, they are a PUBLISHER, not a PLATFORM, and should be subject to the regulations and responsibilities thereof.

"But but but they're a private company they can do what they want" is the normal response. Which is hilariously wrong. A private company cannot decide to not serve black customers or refuse to hire women, per the civil rights act. If that law overrules a company's desire, so does the constitution, which is supposed to rule over EVERYTHING.

Publisher or platform is a distinction without difference within the context of the Constitution.

It IS an open and shut case. No one can be compelled to propagate speech. That’s the First Amendment, and as you say, it rules.

 

[Beerfloat]

You realize you just owned yourself, right? The crux of this legal case is that states DO have the right to regulate speech on these platforms, whereas it is the platforms themselves that claim that free speech protections apply.

You're also unaware of US Federal Law Title 47 Sec 230, enacted as part of the CDA, which gave private platforms immunity from prosecution for content they publish, under the theory that these platforms did not exercise any sort of editorial control over what did and didn't appear. Those days are long behind us. Major platform like FB are actively promoting content that fits a certain agenda, while going to great lengths to censor and suppress others.

The crux is that the states are wrong, they can not compel publishers, or platforms (not actually a legal term), or anyone to propagate anything. That has nothing to do with immunity for what they DO propagate.

 

[yRaz]

Publisher or platform is a distinction without difference within the context of the Constitution.

It IS an open and shut case. No one can be compelled to propagate speech. That’s the First Amendment, and as you say, it rules.

That's a very interesting argument. Maybe we need proper definitions of what public and private are?

If you join a platform that says, "We are about discussing 'X' and subjects out side of that will be moderated." Well, I'm fine with that.

I'm not okay with moderation on something that could be considered a public forum for open discussion. Social media has gotten so large at this point that I feel it shouldn't be censored and should be a platform for open discussion without moderation.

Us talking on Techspot isn't the same thing as Facebook having 4 billion users where many people get all of their news from. Whether that's a bad thing is a whole other discussion, but social media is now a platform for the spread of information and I'd argue that it is no longer proper to "moderate" it unless something someone says posses a significant risk of harm to a person or group of people