Michael Brown’s Post

Justices Appear Divided Over State Laws Regulating Content-Moderation by Social Media Sites | National Law Journal: During a lengthy session, the U.S. Supreme Court displayed both skepticism and empathy towards new Republican-backed social media laws aimed at regulating content moderation on major internet platforms. The court is assessing the constitutionality of laws passed by GOP-controlled legislatures in Florida and Texas, which seek to prevent what they perceive as conservative viewpoint censorship by social media platforms. These laws aim to achieve this by imposing restrictions on how companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube can remove content that violates their policies. The court's stance on how it will address the challenges from the internet industry remains unclear.

US top court hears challenges to social media laws . In a case that could determine the future of social media, the US Supreme Court was asked on Monday to decide whether a pair of state laws that limit content moderation are constitutional. #TechTrends #TechInnovationsDaily #DigitalFrontiers #FutureTechInsights

Yesterday’s Supreme Court oral arguments in CCIA’s landmark social media cases with NetChoice centered on the #FirstAmendment rights of digital services. Check out the highlights & learn more about the important case as #SCOTUS prepares its decision in the coming months:

What's your take on social media platforms moderating political content? Should state laws intervene in platform policies, or should they remain self-regulated? Share your thoughts! The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on pivotal state laws from Florida and Texas aimed at curbing social media platforms' control over political viewpoints. This issue is igniting discussions about the delicate balance between First Amendment rights and content moderation responsibilities. Justices are grappling with questions about governmental oversight of online platforms and the nuanced differences between censorship and content moderation. The debate within the court highlights varying perspectives on free expression and the private sector's role in regulating online discourse. Legal experts anticipate that the court's decision could reshape fundamental First Amendment principles, potentially extending its impact far beyond social media platforms. How might the Supreme Court's decision influence the future of online speech and digital communication platforms? #SocialMediaModeration #StateLaws #FirstAmendment #FreeSpeech #SupremeCourt #OnlineSpeech #DigitalPlatforms #GovernmentOversight #Censorship #Debate #Regulation https://loom.ly/XMMMz7U

The Supreme Court is about to decide the future of online speech Social media companies have long made their own rules about the content they allow on their sites. But a pair of cases set to be argued before the Supreme Court on Monday will test the limits of that freedom, examining whether they can be legally required to host users’ speech. But a pair of cases set to be argued before the Supreme Court on Monday will test the limits of that freedom, examining whether they can be legally required to host users’ speech.The cases, Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, deal with the constitutionality of laws created in Florida and Texas, respectively. Though there are some differences between the two laws, both essentially limit the ability of large online platforms to curate or ban content on their sites, seeking to fight what lawmakers claim are rules that suppress conservative speech. It’s not just big social media platforms that are concerned about the effects of the laws. The nonprofit that runs Wikipedia and individual Reddit moderators have worried that they might need to fundamentally change how they operate or face new legal threats. More traditional publishers have warned that a ruling in the states’ favor could undercut their First Amendment rights as well. #socialmedia #onlineplatforms #supremecourt #regulations #future #timewilltell source : theverge

The Supreme Court's NetChoice decision is already influencing court considerations of social media laws. In California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is debating how this ruling impacts cases on children's online safety and technology transparency. The NetChoice decision frames content moderation as a First Amendment right, affecting arguments in cases like NetChoice v. Bonta and X v. Bonta. These debates highlight the challenge of balancing constitutional rights with regulatory goals. The outcomes will shape the future of technology legislation and its impact on our digital lives. #SocialMedia #OnlineSafety #NetChoice #Legal

Supreme Court decision highlights potential clash between state regulation and First Amendment rights. https://lnkd.in/gT22HU2F The future of social media moderation in question. SCOTUS throws social media content moderation laws back to lower courts. Lower courts must consider broader First Amendment impact. #SocialMediaLaw #DigitalTransformation #ContentRegulation

“Moody and Paxton are critically important cases, and users, digital services, and policymakers alike should be concerned about their impact.” Learn more about CCIA & NetChoice’s #SCOTUS cases challenging unconstitutional social media laws from TX & FL:

We exist in a place and time when we all must be aware of potential litigious responses to our public words and actions. Social media presents yet another space in which we must stay vigilant of possible pitfalls. Grateful for Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo’s helpful summary of the US Supreme Court opinion in Lindke v. Freed. “…Parts of the Lindke opinion suggest precautions public agencies and officials should take to protect against similar lawsuits, including disclaimers on personal social media accounts. For example, the Court stated that if Freed’s Facebook account included a disclaimer stating it was his personal account, he would be entitled to a “heavy (though not irrebuttable) presumption” that his activities were not state action. Officials may also speak on subject matters outside their jurisdiction with minimal risk of engaging in state action. The Court also noted an important distinction between blocking users and deleting individual comments on social media. A public official may engage in state action with respect to some, but not all the posts on their social media account. Deleting comments only on personal posts unrelated to government duties likely would not risk liability. However, blocking a user from commenting on any and all posts could constitute state action and create a risk of liability…” There’s more to this than what I’ve posted. Read this piece!!!