Supreme Court to Hear Social Media Cases on Online Speech (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:41:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Supreme Court to Hear Social Media Cases on Online Speech (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Supreme Court to Hear Social Media Cases on Online Speech  (Read 3407 times)
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
« on: January 23, 2023, 02:13:43 AM »

Pruneyard is sort of a weird case at the nexus of First Amendment rights and property rights. It's actually not a case I've given much attention or thought to. I think there are some major differences between that and online speech though. My understanding of Pruneyard is that private individuals cannot use the power of the state to prohibit individuals exercising free speech rights, but it does not force private individuals to make accommodations. It certainly doesn't allow individuals to place permanent fixtures (such as posters, banners, etc) in such places without consent. I'd be inclined to overrule Pruneyard or at least approach the issue in a different way.

I know some people bring up the common carrier issue, but I don't think social media platforms are common carriers. When it comes to social media platforms, the content is the central focus and entire point. That contrasts with common carriers such as your phone provider or your ISP. Those provide you with a service and generally carry content without regard to what it is. Editorial discretion is generally not within the purview of those types of companies, unlike social media. Social media is all about speech. If a private entity is all about speech, the government should remain out of the picture and silent.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2023, 03:35:16 AM »

I know some people bring up the common carrier issue, but I don't think social media platforms are common carriers. When it comes to social media platforms, the content is the central focus and entire point. That contrasts with common carriers such as your phone provider or your ISP. Those provide you with a service and generally carry content without regard to what it is. Editorial discretion is generally not within the purview of those types of companies, unlike social media. Social media is all about speech. If a private entity is all about speech, the government should remain out of the picture and silent.

I'm not sure this dog will hunt. How is a phone company not "about speech", or at least about the content on, or sent through, people's phones? Until very recently it was next to impossible to do anything over the phone other than speak, and that telecomms infrastructure is still a huge part of what supports Neko Atsume or whatever else today.

I'm saying that the common carrier is the phone company itself. I'm not aware of any phone company that has ever censored individuals calling or texting one another. I'd argue that phone companies function more as pipelines. They don't see, monitor, or otherwise regulate the content that passes through (though that may be changing as technology progresses). Email providers would probably qualify as common carriers as well. Most platforms respect a privacy element through private/direct messages, though not all. The major difference in all of this is that the social media platform is, at its fundamental level, a private entity. It isn't like someone is barred from internet access. No one has a fundamental right to the biggest audience possible.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2023, 08:54:31 AM »

Pruneyard is also not, strictly speaking, even a free-speech case: it's a preemption case regarding the extent to which free-speech is not preempted by the federal government and can be legislated/regulated by the states at all. While the vast majority of (but not all!) state constitutions have provisions similar to California's in 1980, state Supreme Courts could always choose to interpret them differently. The controlling precedents for whether speech on privately-owned social media networks can be protected under the First Amendment are Lloyd, which Torie brought up, and Marsh.

Marsh doesn't have any relevance to this debate. You cannot compare anything about the internet to a company town. As I basically said above, I think the main issue here is that one should have the fundamental right to use the internet as a method to convey their right to free speech. It does not follow that one should have the right to use whatever platform they wish. I think speech on social media is better analogized as putting up posters or banners on someone else's property (even though it may be open to public use). The laws enacted by Texas and Florida seek to force certain speech on social media platforms. I think the 11th Circuit really nailed it on this.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2023, 01:23:22 PM »

Section 230:bringing authoritarians from both parties together since 1996

It wouldn't be an issue at all if we had better free speech jurisprudence. It's a shame Black and Douglas didn't win out the day on free speech rights.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 13 queries.