Supreme Court to hear social media case

Free speech versus the right to pollute the public forum with misinformation that is passed off as factual?

 

This seems to simple. The platform sets content based on user acceptance agreement. The platform decides what can be published. If you don’t like the policy, don’t accept the user agreement, and don’t get to post.

We need a poll for what mods will do with all their free time!?

 

It seems the "limited government" folks want the govt to tell privately run platforms what they can put on their platforms.

 

So limited govt except for this and vaginas. Consistent

 

TikTok must be banned, because China might be collecting data to drive misinformation.

That is the RW's job!! And whoever doesn't participate shall be given the freedom to be imprisoned. Hey, it's your choice if you are going to make the only available choice or not!

 

Lol, gotta love a discussion of misinformation on TWFSG!!!

 

There is no "might be." They are. Why would you want an app on your phone that our military views as a security risk? On December 30, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the No TikTok on Government Devices Act. On March 17, 2023, the FBI and US Justice Department officially launched an investigation of TikTok, including allegations that the company spied on American journalists. Note that several Democrat governors have banned use of TikTok on state government devices, citing security concerns.

 

I think before that decision should be made, other claims regarding the responsibility of social media entities for the mental health of its users should be settled. If the large social media companies have no responsibility for the mental health if it’s users then there should be no limitation on the content it’s users post beyond the current laws limiting sexual and pornographic content.

New York City files a lawsuit saying social media is fueling a youth mental health crisis | Swamp Gas Forums

 

Yes, we need a speech police... and a first Amendment abridging service. Lol... It's funny how many political "facts" sites are owned and operated by Liberals.

The speech police can't get them out of my head, the speech police... police... police.

 

I don’t know that use of social media is the sole cause of a mental health problem in a teenager or any other person. NYC seems to think it does so I guess the courts will decide if it does and whether or not large social media entities have any financial responsibility to treat the illness that they cause.

It will be interesting to see what evidence I’d provided by the plaintiffs and what the court finds.

WRT state governments controlling content on social media, I’m not comfortable with any having the objectivity to do so in a fair and reasonable manner.

 

Oral arguments from the Florida and Texas cases:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/22-277

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/22-555

 

The Florida and Texas laws specifically.
Seems the justices (thankfully) see the silliness in them, but have fears around the powe of big tech. So the ruling should be interesting,

Supreme Court justices express free speech concerns about GOP-backed social media laws

 

I’m just wondering where the line is, if the media company isn’t allowed to determine their own content standards. Would conservative speech include explicitly racist speech?

If private companies can’t control their own content, and nobody really wants 100% free speech that basically leaves the government to decide what speech is appropriate and not.

 

Exactly, what is the alternative to free speech we are seeking here? Free speech, except when we deem the company to be really powerful and pushing liberal narratives?

 

I listened to the OA in the Florida case but not the Texas case. I imagine they were fairly similar. I have linked one summary below.

Few interesting things that stood out to me:

The Florida case at least is a facial challenge so there was a lot of confusion and speculation about how a record might look after significant litigation. Both sides were complaining about the other side when discussing the procedural posture and how those strategic decisions might impact what the Court can or should do here.

Those opposing the law say there are multiple provisions that are clearly unconstitutional on their face. They make analogies with newspapers, bookstores and other private companies that have an editorial function, saying the government can't force them to publish speech which goes against the message or viewpoints of the company.

Florida essentially argues that social media companies are analogous to other common carriers such as trains and phone lines.

I hadn't considered how broad the wording is; the law would presumably apply to Etsy, Uber, Gmail, and other large companies that have an online presence that are arguably distinguishable from paradigm social media companies like Facebook and Twitter/X. From what I can tell, Gmail probably isn't a publisher in the same way that Facebook might be.

Even with Facebook, there may be an argument that some of its functions are editorial (its news feeds) while others might not be.

Florida argues that they do not have to establish a relative lack of competition in the relevant market, saying that Verizon can't generally pick and choose who gets to use their service or what users are allowed to communicate. Notably, though, social media companies like Gab and Parlor aren't affected by this based upon the trigger thresholds of money or users.

The opponents of the bill argue that social media companies and advertisers have a clear right not to associate with hate speech, glorification of violence or terrorism, etc. I was wondering - would this have prohibited Musk from suspending Kanye's account when he was posting swastikas and ranting about Jewish people? What if Musk wanted to ban all posts supporting gender transitioning? Could he/should he be able to do that? Should Facebook have to give Alex Jones a platform to lie about the victims of an event such as Sandy Hook?

I was surprised there wasn't more discussion about DeSantis' and other statements supporting the law given that it was clearly the result of concerns about protecting "conservative" speech (perhaps a partisan motive).

The Section 230 liability/protection issues and how they might play into the analysis were raised but not as prominently as I expected.

I thought at least someone was going to ask whether Instagram and Facebook could be compelled to host explicit adult content. I didn't hear that pointed question, but there was a very brief mention by someone about content that is lewd, obscene or "otherwise offensive." I don't know how that all works or if that is a line that's going to be drawn. Obviously, lots of legal speech is offensive to someone.

Another area that seems very iffy to me is the requirement that moderation be performed "consistently." That's a chore for the moderation of even a board like this. Seems like it might be impossible for anyone to do that perfectly and be subject to six figure fines if they don't.

Supreme Court skeptical of Texas, Florida regulation of social media moderation - SCOTUSblog