Public Knowledge’s Post

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a request from the Biden administration to temporarily block a lower court’s order that would limit the ability of government officials to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented and wrote: “This case concerns what two lower courts found to be a ‘coordinated campaign’ by high-level federal officials to suppress the expression of disfavored views on important public issues. … To prevent the continuation of this campaign, these officials were enjoined from either ‘coerc[ing]’ social media companies to engage in such censorship or ‘active[ly] control[ling]’ those companies’ decisions about the content posted on their platforms. … Today, however, a majority of the Court, without undertaking a full review of the record and without any explanation, suspends the effect of that injunction until the Court completes its review of this case, an event that may not occur until late in the spring of next year. Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and therefore today’s decision is highly disturbing.” https://lnkd.in/gQF8-D9S

The debate over how far companies can go to limit content online — known as moderation — has become increasingly polarized. On one side, government officials have argued that they have a duty to protect public health and national security from false or misleading information. Republicans and others, however, have accused the social media giants of colluding with government officials to limit conservative voices in violation of First Amendment protections of free speech. The recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the latter, saying the Biden Administration coerced and threatened social media companies to take down content it considered to be false and harmful about COVID, the 2020 election and other topics. https://lnkd.in/gGYVv8uU #disinformation #misinformation #firstamendment #freespeech

What to Know About the Supreme Court Case on Free Speech on Social Media: Both Florida and Texas passed laws regulating how social media companies moderate speech online. The laws, if upheld, c... https://lnkd.in/dvHgxC9Y

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

🚨 BREAKING NEWS ‼️ US Supreme Court decision: Elected officials are now prohibited from deleting posts or blocking users on their "official" social media pages. This landmark ruling has profound implications for politicians in the digital age. 📱💼 • Check out the full article to understand the legal ramifications and how politicians must adapt to this new reality: https://lnkd.in/enXmbtMW In essence, the Court emphasized the importance of distinguishing between "personal" and "official" social media pages. Failure to do so could lead to serious legal consequences. 📜⚖️ To comply with the ruling, politicians are urged to clearly label their social media pages and add a disclosure about their non-involvement in state actions. 🗣️✅ 🇺🇸 #SupremeCourt #SocialMedia #Politics #LegalTransparency #election2024 #politicalcampaigns #politicalconsulting #politicalanalysis #campaignmanagement #campaignstrategy #news #breakingnews #SCOTUS #campaigns #VoterMaker

 Check out the latest blog by Kevin Vu! This blog explores some of the possible reasons why the United States Supreme Court is taking more and more cases that concern social media companies. It first summarizes the cases currently on the Court’s docket, and then explains some reasons the Court could be taking those cases.   #SCOTUS #NetChoice #SocialMedia #FirstAmendment #TechLaw #uwlaw #wjlta https://lnkd.in/gKv3yyk4

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!!!

BREAKING - OUTRAGED: Justice Samuel Alito EXPLODES after Supreme Court dismisses case against Biden's White House pressuring social media companies to censor what they deemed disinformation during COVID and the 2020 election, says America might regret the decision, says, White House pressure "Cannot Be Dismissed as Mere Persuasion." In dissenting, Justice Alito was joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Alito penned a withering dissent in the Murthy case in stark contrast to the bewildering majority opinion in which Coney Barrett seems to contend there is some benign coercion exception to the federal govt violating the 1st Amendment. The naivete expressed by the majority as to what the government was doing is galactic in scope. One of the worst decisions in recent memory. A terrible day for fans of living in a free society. NOTE: Justice Alito expressed significant concern about the extent of government influence on social media platforms, emphasizing that the interactions went beyond mere encouragement and ventured into coercion. "The Government’s pressure tactics, which included threats of adverse regulatory action, cannot be dismissed as mere persuasion." NOTE: The dissent argued that the majority mischaracterized the plaintiffs' standing, asserting that the connection between government actions and social media censorship was sufficiently established. "The majority’s demand for concrete evidence of causation in each instance of censorship overlooks the broader pattern of government pressure and its chilling effect on free speech." NOTE: The dissent emphasized the potential chilling effect of government actions on free speech, warning that the ruling could embolden future government efforts to suppress dissenting views. "This ruling effectively grants the government a free pass to continue its campaign of suppression, threatening the foundational principles of free expression." NOTE: Justice Alito argued that judicial intervention is necessary to prevent further government overreach in influencing social media moderation policies. "Judicial oversight is imperative to safeguard against the encroachment of government on the marketplace of ideas." NOTE: The dissent highlighted ongoing evidence of government influence over social media platforms, pointing to continued communications and pressure tactics. "The record is replete with instances of continued government engagement with social media companies, underscoring the persistent nature of the coercion."

A Supreme Court case about technology, national security, and extremism - a fascinating intersection of my studies, and a really interesting case. Check out the preview I wrote with Lindsay Maher.

#ICYMI : The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a claim that the Biden administration coerced social media companies into censoring content. Here are 3 quick takeaways from me after reading this article, as someone who's worked in social media over the last 8 years: 1️⃣ The Supreme Court's decision highlights the ongoing debate about the extent to which government can engage with social media platforms on content moderation. 2️⃣ This case also underscores the delicate balance between mitigating misinformation and preserving free speech. Both the government and social media companies play pivotal roles here, and this ruling could set a significant precedent for future interactions and regulations. 3️⃣ As social media platforms continue to influence the public, the outcome of this case will likely impact how policies are crafted moving forward to address misinformation without overstepping constitutional rights. It’s a reminder for all stakeholders to stay informed and adaptable to legal developments in this space. Full Article: https://lnkd.in/eZpwbn5z