Supreme Court kicks cases about tech companies’ First Amendment rights back to lower courts − but appears poised to block states from hampering online content moderation

Any laws reducing ANYBODY'S free speech seem to me a clear case of "abridging  freedom of speech", which is what the 1st amendment forbids.  So the States should get out of the matter

The U.S. Supreme Court has sent back to lower courts the decision about whether states can block social media companies such as Facebook and X, formerly Twitter, from regulating and controlling what users can post on their platforms.

Laws in Florida and Texas sought to impose restrictions on the internal policies and algorithms of social media platforms in ways that influence which posts will be promoted and spread widely and which will be made less visible or even removed.

In the unanimous decision, issued on July 1, 2024, the high court remanded the two cases, Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, to the 11th and 5th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, respectively. The court admonished the lower courts for their failure to consider the full force of the laws’ applications. It also warned the lower courts to consider the boundaries imposed by the Constitution against government interference with private speech.

Contrasting views of social media sites

In their arguments before the court in February 2024, the two sides described competing visions of how social media fits into the often overwhelming flood of information that defines modern digital society.

The states said the platforms were mere conduits of communication, or “speech hosts,” similar to legacy telephone companies that were required to carry all calls and prohibited from discriminating against users. The states said that the platforms should have to carry all posts from users without discrimination among them based on what they were saying.

The states argued that the content moderation rules the social media companies imposed were not examples of the platforms themselves speaking – or choosing not to speak. Rather, the states said, the rules affected the platforms’ behavior and caused them to censor certain views by allowing them to determine whom to allow to speak on which topics, which is outside First Amendment protections.

By contrast, the social media platforms, represented by NetChoice, a tech industry trade group, argued that the platforms’ guidelines about what is acceptable on their sites are protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of speech free from government interference. The companies say their platforms are not public forums that may be subject to government regulation but rather private services that can exercise their own editorial judgment about what does or does not appear on their sites.

They argued that their policies were aspects of their own speech and that they should be allowed to develop and implement guidelines about what is acceptable speech on their platforms based on their own First Amendment rights.

A reframe by the Supreme Court

All the litigants – NetChoice, Texas and Florida – framed the issue around the effect of the laws on the content moderation policies of the platforms, specifically whether the platforms were engaged in protected speech. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court preliminary injunction against the Florida law, holding the content moderation policies of the platforms were speech and the law was unconstitutional.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came to the opposite conclusion and held that the platforms were not engaged in speech, but rather the platform’s algorithms controlled platform behavior unprotected by the First Amendment. The 5th Circuit determined the behavior was censorship and reversed a lower court injunction against the Texas law.

The Supreme Court, however, reframed the inquiry. The court noted that the lower courts failed to consider the full range of activities the laws covered. Thus, while a First Amendment inquiry was in order, the decisions of the lower courts and the arguments by the parties were incomplete. The court added that neither the parties nor the lower courts engaged in a thorough analysis of whether and how the states’ laws affected other elements of the platforms’ products, such as Facebook’s direct messaging applications, or even whether the laws have any impact on email providers or online marketplaces.

The Supreme Court directed the lower courts to engage in a much more exacting analysis of the laws and their implications and provided some guidelines.

First Amendment principles

The court held that content moderation policies reflect the constitutionally protected editorial choices of the platforms, at least regarding what the court describes as “heartland applications” of the laws – such as Facebook’s News Feed and YouTube’s homepage.

The Supreme Court required the lower courts to consider two core constitutional principles of the First Amendment. One is that the amendment protects speakers from being compelled to communicate messages they would prefer to exclude. Editorial discretion by entities, including social media companies, that compile and curate the speech of others is a protected First Amendment activity.

The other principle holds that the amendment precludes the government from controlling private speech, even for the purpose of balancing the marketplace of ideas. Neither state nor federal government may manipulate that marketplace for the purposes of presenting a more balanced array of viewpoints.

The court also affirmed that these principles apply to digital media in the same way they apply to traditional or legacy media.

In the 96-page opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote: “The First Amendment … does not go on leave when social media are involved.” For now, it appears the social media platforms will continue to control their content.

https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-kicks-cases-about-tech-companies-first-amendment-rights-back-to-lower-courts-but-appears-poised-to-block-states-from-hampering-online-content-moderation-233607

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Supreme Court Overturns Finding of Illegal Censorship on COVID-19 and More; Dissenters Stand Up for Free Speech

Relying on "standing" as a reason not to defend free speech is a real cop-out. As a matter of great public interest, I would have thought that EVERYONE had standing

Once upon a time, it was liberals such as those at the ACLU who stood up for free speech under the First Amendment. In a June 26 ruling by the Supreme Court in Murthy, et al. v. Missouri et al., the script has flipped, with conservative justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch defending free speech, albeit in the dissent.

The Murthy opinion overturns the federal Court of Appeals decision which had banned government agencies from telling social media firms what they should, or should not, allow to be published. The majority opinion by Justice Barrett ruled that the plaintiffs did not have “standing,” legalese for the requirement to show that they have personally suffered, or will suffer, from the actions of defendants. In addition to the standing issue, this lengthy opinion makes every effort to downplay the effects of, or deny the reality of, undisputed efforts by the US government to limit free speech relating to COVID-19, election integrity, and more.  Aren’t the attorney generals there to represent their state’s residents?

We know from firsthand experience about the censorship ongoing during the Biden administration. From Facebook to YouTube factual news posted by TrialSite was routinely flagged or censored despite 100% factual news accounts.  TrialSite was even censored for “mal-information” involving the Gardasil lawsuit. We simply reported on the litigation against Merck by persons claiming injury due to the HPV vaccine.  YouTube censored declaring because the World Health Organization had not commented on the lawsuit they considered any reporting on the topic “mal-information.”

But back to the case.

Injury traceable to government?

Barrett recounts how during, “the 2020 election season and the COVID–19 pandemic, social-media platforms frequently removed, demoted, or fact checked posts containing allegedly false or misleading information. At the same time, federal officials, concerned about the spread of ‘misinformation’ on social media, communicated extensively with the platforms about their content-moderation efforts.” The plaintiffs include two states as well as five users of social media. They sued dozens of Executive Branch agencies and officials for violation of the First Amendment. In key language, Barrett posits that as to the prior ruling, “The Fifth Circuit was wrong to do so. To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek. Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”

Lab-origin of COVID-19 suppressed

Topics of “misinformation” at issue included “the efficacy and safety of mask wearing and the COVID–19 vaccine, along with posts on related topics.” Notably, all the evidence shows that face masking does not stop the spread of respiratory viruses. So here is a case where the truth was censored. Likewise, a lab origin for COVID-19 was deemed a “conspiracy” theory, despite being the likeliest explanation for the pandemic. Also, the Hunter Biden laptop revelations were effectively halted by false claims by our government that the story was “Russian hacking” related. The truth is Hunter, a drug addict, left his computer at a repair shop and never picked it up. This one example of censorship could well have impacted the 2020 presidential election.

Officials “peppered” Facebook with questions

The opinion admits that “officials peppered Facebook (and to a lesser extent, Twitter and YouTube) with detailed questions about their policies, pushed them to suppress certain content, and sometimes recommended policy changes. Some of these communications were more aggressive than others. For example, the director of Digital Strategy, frustrated that Facebook had not removed a particular post, complained: ‘[L]ast time we did this dance, it ended in an insurrection.’” Barrett also concedes that officials, “perhaps as motivation, raised the possibility of reforms aimed at the platforms, including changes to the antitrust laws and 47 U. S. C. §230.” Despite the opinion’s efforts to minimize the government’s actions, it notes that “Because we do not reach the merits, we express no view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when the Government transforms private conduct into state action.”

A “right to listen”?

While the plaintiffs alleged standing both on direct censorship on their views and of their “right to listen” to the then censored voices. Barrett offered that “together, the plaintiffs must show a substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant.” While the Fifth Circuit focused on the general First Amendment violation of agencies telling the broad social media community what to say, Barrett focused on the difficulty of discerning which government actions may have led to which suppressions of speech based on content.   

Dissent stands up for First Amendment

According to the dissent by Justice Alito, who along with two others would have upheld the lower appeals court decision: “In sum, the officials wielded potent authority. Their communications with Facebook were virtual demands. And Facebook’s quavering responses to those demands show that it felt a strong need to yield. For these reasons, I would hold that [one plaintiff] is likely to prevail on her claim that the White House coerced Facebook into censoring her speech.” Alito closed his dissent with the following: “For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.”

We can’t be certain on impact but likely federal meddling in the communications of its citizens will ensue. Especially so if new emergencies are declared.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/supreme-court-overturns-finding-of-illegal-censorship-on-covid-19-and-more-dissenters-stand-up-for-free-speech-5e3ba99d

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

‘Hate Speech’ laws and the murder of justice

Anyone keen on hate speech laws, needs to spend a year in Pakistan living under their Islamic blasphemy laws.

It’s heart-breaking stuff. I’ve been writing about its victims for a few years now, and it hits me hard every time.

Two Christian teens are set to be hanged over cartoons sent to their mobile phones by a Muslim, who authorities let off.

Their lawyer, has rightly called their sentencing, ‘the murder of justice.’

Nouman Asghar, and Sunny Mushtaq, are from the Punjab province, and have been in prison since 2019.

Their alleged crime was ‘blaspheming the prophet Muhammad’ after allegedly receiving cartoon drawings of the warlord on their mobile phones through WhatsApp.

Notably, authorities didn’t take any action against the Muslim, who allegedly sent the so-called ‘blasphemous’ images.

In June 2023, Asghar, now 25, was sentenced to death by hanging.

Mushtaq awaits the same grim sentencing.

He’s also been accused of printing the cartoons, and distributing them.

International Christian Concern, quoting from Agenzia Fides, said the men were arrested for ‘violating article 295-c of the Penal Code, which punishes contempt for the Prophet Muhammad’.

Lawyer, Aneeqa Maria Anthony, said the ‘magistrate ignored all the procedures and dismissed all the evidence’.

‘He only wanted to complete his “sacred duty” to punish an alleged blasphemer.’

Legal defence team member Lazar Allah Rakha, told Catholic Herald:

‘There was no proof against Nouman, and none of the witnesses produced by police could corroborate the blasphemy allegation.

‘This is murder of justice.’

Speaking about the weaponisation of blasphemy legislation, Jeff King, ICC’s president remarked, these kinds of laws are ‘often used to settle personal scores or persecute minorities’.

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), explained that it’s aware of at least ‘80 individuals in Pakistan who remain imprisoned on blasphemy charges’.

The majority face the death penalty.

According to USCIRF,

‘Under sections 295 and 298 of Pakistan’s Penal Code, individuals are prohibited from verbal and nonverbal actions deemed insulting to religious belief and practice.’

All that’s required to enact these laws is an accusation.

Legal justification for arrest is ambiguous.

Listing them, USCIRF said, reasons include:

Inflicting physical damage on the Qur’an or other Islamic religious text, even if unintentional.

Sending and receiving text messages, sometimes unsolicited, which are later deemed insulting to the Prophet Muhammad or the Islamic faith.

Making comments in personal conversations that witnesses attest to be blasphemous in nature.

The Islamist version of ‘hate speech laws’ even come with their own eSafety overwatch.

Criticism is banned, and social media use regulated.

Reasons for incarceration also includes:

‘Translating and uploading content to personal blogs and non-Muslim websites, or writing Facebook posts deemed to be insulting to the Islamic faith.’

These anti-free speech laws are a licence to murder justice.

They serve a subjectivist dystopia.

As I’ve shown, the lessons are clear: ‘hate speech’ laws are easily weaponised, and just as easily abused.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/06/hate-speech-laws-and-the-murder-of-justice/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************