ZwillGen’s Post

US top court hears challenges to social media laws . In a case that could determine the future of social media, the US Supreme Court was asked on Monday to decide whether a pair of state laws that limit content moderation are constitutional. #TechTrends #TechInnovationsDaily #DigitalFrontiers #FutureTechInsights

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

 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

https://lnkd.in/gp4wMhMQ A good summary for those who want a quick review of this landmark court case impacting social media.

📢 LAW ALERT: The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked a lower court's order halting the efforts of the Biden administration to block controversial social media posts on topics regarding COVID-19 and election security. Read more: https://lnkd.in/gRvJ9dwg #whitehouse #covid19 #electionsecurity #firstamendment #constitutionallaw #socialmedia

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!!!

Yesterday’s Supreme Court oral arguments in CCIA’s landmark social media cases with NetChoice centered on the #FirstAmendment rights of digital services. Check out the highlights & learn more about the important case as #SCOTUS prepares its decision in the coming months:

Supreme Court Weighs When Officials May Block Citizens on #SocialMedia The justices struggled to distinguish private conduct, which is not subject to the #FirstAmendment, from state action, which is. “The Supreme Court worked hard in a pair of arguments on Tuesday to find a clear constitutional line separating elected officials’ purely private social media accounts from ones that reflect government actions and are subject to the First Amendment. After three hours, though, it was not clear that a majority of the justices had settled on a clear test. The question in the two cases was when the Constitution limits officials’ ability to block users from their accounts. The answer turned on whether the officials’ use of the accounts amounted to “state action,” which is governed by the First Amendment, or private activity, which is not.” By Adam Liptak https://lnkd.in/euPQRw23 #freedom #freedomofspeech #censorship #propaganda #misinformation #security #privacy #justice #democracy