Supreme Court to Hear Social Media Cases on Online Speech
Frodo:
They concern social media giants' autonomy and Section 230's protections from liability vs. the need to guard against mis/disinformation online:
Supreme Court Poised to Reconsider Key Tenets of Online Speech
The cases could significantly affect the power and responsibilities of social media platforms.
Quote
For years, giant social networks like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have operated under two crucial tenets.
The first is that the platforms have the power to decide what content to keep online and what to take down, free from government oversight. The second is that the websites cannot be held legally responsible for most of what their users post online, shielding the companies from lawsuits over libelous speech, extremist content and real-world harm linked to their platforms.
Now the Supreme Court is poised to reconsider those rules, potentially leading to the most significant reset of the doctrines governing online speech since U.S. officials and courts decided to apply few regulations to the web in the 1990s.
On Friday, the Supreme Court is expected to discuss whether to hear two cases that challenge laws in Texas and Florida barring online platforms from taking down certain political content. Next month, the court is scheduled to hear a case that questions Section 230, a 1996 statute that protects the platforms from liability for the content posted by their users.
I personally think social media should operate on much the same rules as newspapers and magazines do, which have no such protections except those affirmed under the 1964 New York Times vs. Sullivan decision.
NewYorkExpress:
Quote from: Frodo on January 19, 2023, 10:55:39 PM
They concern social media giants' autonomy and Section 230's protections from liability vs. the need to guard against mis/disinformation online:
Supreme Court Poised to Reconsider Key Tenets of Online Speech
The cases could significantly affect the power and responsibilities of social media platforms.
Quote
For years, giant social networks like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have operated under two crucial tenets.
The first is that the platforms have the power to decide what content to keep online and what to take down, free from government oversight. The second is that the websites cannot be held legally responsible for most of what their users post online, shielding the companies from lawsuits over libelous speech, extremist content and real-world harm linked to their platforms.
Now the Supreme Court is poised to reconsider those rules, potentially leading to the most significant reset of the doctrines governing online speech since U.S. officials and courts decided to apply few regulations to the web in the 1990s.
On Friday, the Supreme Court is expected to discuss whether to hear two cases that challenge laws in Texas and Florida barring online platforms from taking down certain political content. Next month, the court is scheduled to hear a case that questions Section 230, a 1996 statute that protects the platforms from liability for the content posted by their users.
I personally think social media should operate on much the same rules as newspapers and magazines do, which have no such protections except those affirmed under the 1964 New York Times vs. Sullivan decision.
I'd honestly go further and say social media isn't protected by the First Amendment at all.
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.:
Quote from: GM Team Member NewYorkExpress on January 19, 2023, 11:21:42 PM
Quote from: Frodo on January 19, 2023, 10:55:39 PM
They concern social media giants' autonomy and Section 230's protections from liability vs. the need to guard against mis/disinformation online:
Supreme Court Poised to Reconsider Key Tenets of Online Speech
The cases could significantly affect the power and responsibilities of social media platforms.
Quote
For years, giant social networks like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have operated under two crucial tenets.
The first is that the platforms have the power to decide what content to keep online and what to take down, free from government oversight. The second is that the websites cannot be held legally responsible for most of what their users post online, shielding the companies from lawsuits over libelous speech, extremist content and real-world harm linked to their platforms.
Now the Supreme Court is poised to reconsider those rules, potentially leading to the most significant reset of the doctrines governing online speech since U.S. officials and courts decided to apply few regulations to the web in the 1990s.
On Friday, the Supreme Court is expected to discuss whether to hear two cases that challenge laws in Texas and Florida barring online platforms from taking down certain political content. Next month, the court is scheduled to hear a case that questions Section 230, a 1996 statute that protects the platforms from liability for the content posted by their users.
I personally think social media should operate on much the same rules as newspapers and magazines do, which have no such protections except those affirmed under the 1964 New York Times vs. Sullivan decision.
I'd honestly go further and say social media isn't protected by the First Amendment at all.
What are you basing this on?
NewYorkExpress:
Quote from: Kevin McCarthy Steps on Rakes on January 20, 2023, 12:17:04 AM
Quote from: GM Team Member NewYorkExpress on January 19, 2023, 11:21:42 PM
Quote from: Frodo on January 19, 2023, 10:55:39 PM
They concern social media giants' autonomy and Section 230's protections from liability vs. the need to guard against mis/disinformation online:
Supreme Court Poised to Reconsider Key Tenets of Online Speech
The cases could significantly affect the power and responsibilities of social media platforms.
Quote
For years, giant social networks like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have operated under two crucial tenets.
The first is that the platforms have the power to decide what content to keep online and what to take down, free from government oversight. The second is that the websites cannot be held legally responsible for most of what their users post online, shielding the companies from lawsuits over libelous speech, extremist content and real-world harm linked to their platforms.
Now the Supreme Court is poised to reconsider those rules, potentially leading to the most significant reset of the doctrines governing online speech since U.S. officials and courts decided to apply few regulations to the web in the 1990s.
On Friday, the Supreme Court is expected to discuss whether to hear two cases that challenge laws in Texas and Florida barring online platforms from taking down certain political content. Next month, the court is scheduled to hear a case that questions Section 230, a 1996 statute that protects the platforms from liability for the content posted by their users.
I personally think social media should operate on much the same rules as newspapers and magazines do, which have no such protections except those affirmed under the 1964 New York Times vs. Sullivan decision.
I'd honestly go further and say social media isn't protected by the First Amendment at all.
What are you basing this on?
Social Media isn't the press (if anything, it just copypastes articles from the press onto their platforms).
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.:
Quote from: GM Team Member NewYorkExpress on January 20, 2023, 12:26:00 AM
Quote from: Kevin McCarthy Steps on Rakes on January 20, 2023, 12:17:04 AM
Quote from: GM Team Member NewYorkExpress on January 19, 2023, 11:21:42 PM
Quote from: Frodo on January 19, 2023, 10:55:39 PM
They concern social media giants' autonomy and Section 230's protections from liability vs. the need to guard against mis/disinformation online:
Supreme Court Poised to Reconsider Key Tenets of Online Speech
The cases could significantly affect the power and responsibilities of social media platforms.
Quote
For years, giant social networks like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have operated under two crucial tenets.
The first is that the platforms have the power to decide what content to keep online and what to take down, free from government oversight. The second is that the websites cannot be held legally responsible for most of what their users post online, shielding the companies from lawsuits over libelous speech, extremist content and real-world harm linked to their platforms.
Now the Supreme Court is poised to reconsider those rules, potentially leading to the most significant reset of the doctrines governing online speech since U.S. officials and courts decided to apply few regulations to the web in the 1990s.
On Friday, the Supreme Court is expected to discuss whether to hear two cases that challenge laws in Texas and Florida barring online platforms from taking down certain political content. Next month, the court is scheduled to hear a case that questions Section 230, a 1996 statute that protects the platforms from liability for the content posted by their users.
I personally think social media should operate on much the same rules as newspapers and magazines do, which have no such protections except those affirmed under the 1964 New York Times vs. Sullivan decision.
I'd honestly go further and say social media isn't protected by the First Amendment at all.
What are you basing this on?
Social Media isn't the press (if anything, it just copypastes articles from the press onto their platforms).
"The press" is only one of several things the First Amendment protects. Social media is clearly "speech," and often deeply unpopular political and religious speech at that, a type of speech which has long been held to call for just about the highest level of constitutional protection possible. I actually agree that there are things about how social media works that might call for that traditional understanding to be partially revisited, but you can't just say that "social media isn't the press and thus isn't protected by the First Amendment" and expect that argument to be taken seriously.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page