Daily Archives: July 5, 2024

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

See the original post:
Exotic Dancer First Amendment | National | reflector.com - The Daily Reflector

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, two consequential cases about the future of speech on the internet. The court explicitly extended First Amendment protections to how social media platforms organize, curate, and moderate their feeds, drawing a comparison between internet content moderation and traditional publishers and editors.

The decision elaborates that the compilation and curation of others speech into an expressive product of its own is entitled to First Amendment protection and that the government cannot get its way just by asserting an interest in better balancing the marketplace of ideas.

The NetChoice cases concern a pair of similar laws in Florida and Texas that aimed to limit how large social media companies could moderate content on their sites. The legislation took shape after conservative politicians in both states criticized major tech companies for allegedly exerting bias against conservative viewpoints. Tech industry groups NetChoiceand the Computer & Communications Industry Association sued to block both laws. Appeals courts in each state came to different conclusions about whether the statutes could be upheld, setting up the Supreme Court to make the final call.

The Supreme Court vacated both of the appeals court decisions, ruling that neither court adequately analyzed the facial First Amendment challenges to the laws that is, whether the social media content moderation laws in Florida and Texas would always be unconstitutional in all applications. The court sent the cases back down to the lower courts to reconsider.

Under the new Supreme Court decision, content moderation is generally protected by the First Amendment. When the platforms use their Standards and Guidelines to decide which third-party content those feeds will display, or how the display will be ordered and organized, they are making expressive choices, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion. And because that is true, they receive First Amendment protection.

None of the justices dissented, but there were several concurring opinions. Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined part of the majority opinion but wrote a concurrence. Justices Barrett, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito also wrote concurring opinions.

Kagan added that the Texas law is unlikely to withstand First Amendment scrutiny

The majority seemed particularly critical of the Fifth Circuits evaluation in favor of Texas social media law, HB20, which seeks to protect online speech from discrimination on the basis of viewpoint. Contrary to what the Fifth Circuit thought, the current record indicates that the Texas law does regulate speech when applied in the way the parties focused on below when applied, that is, to prevent Facebook (or YouTube) from using its content-moderation standards to remove, alter, organize, prioritize, or disclaim posts in its News Feed (or homepage), Kagan wrote for the majority. The law then prevents exactly the kind of editorial judgments this Court has previously held to receive First Amendment protection. Kagan added that the Texas law is unlikely to withstand First Amendment scrutiny in that specific application.

Even though the justices declined to rule on the specific merits of the cases, they said it was still necessary to say more about how the First Amendment relates to the laws content-moderation provisions to make sure the lower courts are put on the right path of analysis. The majority was especially eager to correct the Fifth Circuits First Amendment analysis that led it to uphold Texas law, though they provided the caveat that their explanation does not address other applications of the law that werent initially considered. The Fifth Circuit was wrong in concluding that Texass restrictions on the platforms selection, ordering, and labeling of third-party posts do not interfere with expression, Kagan wrote. And the court was wrong to treat as valid Texass interest in changing the content of the platforms feeds.

The court was also critical of the Texas legislatures reasoning for passing the law. The record reflects that Texas officials passed it because they thought those feeds skewed against politically conservative voices, the majority opinion says. But this Court has many times held, in many contexts, that it is no job for government to decide what counts as the right balance of private expression to un-bias what it thinks biased, rather than to leave such judgments to speakers and their audiences. That principle works for social-media platforms as it does for others.

However imperfect the private marketplace of ideas, here was a worse proposal

The majority offered three main takeaways from a series of relevant Supreme Court precedents that came up throughout the cases. First, that the First Amendment protects entities engaged in expressive activity, including compiling and curating others speech from including messages theyd rather not. Second, that protection doesnt change just because a compiler includes most items and excludes just a few. And third, the governments argument that its actions would improve the marketplace of ideas is not an adequate justification. However imperfect the private marketplace of ideas, here was a worse proposal the government itself deciding when speech was imbalanced, and then coercing speakers to provide more of some views or less of others, the majority opinion says.

Kagan wrote that the appeals court decisions were being vacated for reasons separate from the First Amendment merits. Instead of looking broadly at how the laws applied to multiple companies and multiple products, the lower courts had according to SCOTUS focused too narrowly on the curated feeds offered by the largest and most paradigmatic social-media platforms. Instead of making a proper analysis into a facial challenge, the appeals courts treated the cases as though each was an as-applied challenge brought by Facebook protesting its loss of control over the content of its News Feed.

SCOTUS said the lower courts did not do enough work for it to review the cases on the merits. Maybe the parties treated the content-moderation choices reflected in Facebooks News Feed and YouTubes homepage as the laws heartland applications because they are the principal things regulated, and should have just that weight in the facial analysis, Kagan wrote. Or maybe not: Maybe the parties focus had all to do with litigation strategy, and there is a sphere of other applications and constitutional ones that would prevent the laws facial invalidation.

In summarizing earlier Supreme Court opinions about whether cable operators could be compelled to give some of their channels to local broadcasters, the court said that a private partys collection of third-party content into a single speech product ... is itself expressive, and intrusion into that activity must be specially justified under the First Amendment. That could easily apply to social media companies that compile third-party content from many users across the internet.

The justices heard oral arguments in the two cases in February. At the time, several justices prodded counsel about how the laws would impact tech companies that did not seem top of mind when they were authored, including Uber, Etsy, and Venmo.

Alito wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Thomas, in which he claimed that the judgment, which he also joined in, was narrow and confined to a finding that NetChoice failed to make the case that the laws were facially unconstitutional. He also said that the rest of the majority opinion (which five justices joined, plus a sixth having joined in part) was nonbinding dicta. Dicta is a part of a legal opinion that can be cited as being persuasive but is not considered binding precedent.

Alitos concurrence also objects to the blanket characterization of content moderation as an expressive activity, saying that algorithms remove a small fraction of nonconforming posts post hoc and prioritize content based on factors that the platforms have not revealed and may not even know and notes that many of the biggest platforms are beginning to use AI algorithms to help them moderate content. Alito questioned whether decisions made by AI could be expressive enough to warrant First Amendment protection.

Barrett, who joined the majoritys opinion, also wrote a separate concurrence that mentioned the application of the First Amendment to artificial intelligence.

Barrett wrote that the use of AI might have different implications for whether a court should assess the output as the result of a humans expressive choices. She said that algorithms programmed to remove or prioritize certain content can be taken as simply implementing a humans expressive decisions even if that algorithm is programmed to identify and remove posts promoting a certain political candidate or position on an issue. But, she wrote, the analysis might differ if a platform owner asks an AI trained on a large language model to determine what is hateful content to be removed.

Technology may attenuate the connection between content-moderation actions (e.g., removing posts) and human beings constitutionally protected right to decide for [themselves] the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence, Barrett wrote, citing Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC.

Barretts concurrence also noted that foreign ownership of a platform could alter the analysis something that is at the center of TikToks challenge of a new law that would force it to be divested from Chinese parent company ByteDance or face a ban. That case is awaiting oral arguments before the DC Circuit Court, which will need to weigh supposed First Amendment harms against the alleged national security risks lawmakers feared when they passed the bill. Barrett wrote that while corporations have First Amendment rights, foreign persons and corporations located abroad do not.

View post:
Supreme Court protects the future of content moderation - The Verge