Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether social media companies can censor their users

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> Date: October 18, 2018 at 4:22:11 AM GMT+9
> To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether social media companies can 
> censor their users
> Reply-To: dewayne-net () warpspeed com
>
> [Note:  This item comes from reader Randall Head.  DLH]
>
> Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies 
> can censor their users
> By Tucker Higgins
> Oct 17 2018
> <https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/10/16/supreme-court-case-could-decide-fb-twitter-power-to-regulate-speech.html>
>
>    • The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether users can challenge social media 
> companies on free speech grounds.
>    • The case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-702, centers on whether a private operator of a 
> public access television network is considered a state actor which can be sued for First Amendment violations.
>    • The case could have broader implications for social media and other media outlets. In particular, a broad ruling 
> from the high court could open the country's largest technology companies up to First Amendment lawsuits.
>
> The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether users can challenge social media companies 
> on free speech grounds.
>
> The case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-702, centers on whether a private operator of a public 
> access television network is considered a state actor, which can be sued for First Amendment violations.
>
> The case could have broader implications for social media and other media outlets. In particular, a broad ruling from 
> the high court could open the country's largest technology companies up to First Amendment lawsuits.
>
> That could shape the ability of companies like Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet's Google to control the content on 
> their platforms as lawmakers clamor for more regulation and activists on the left and right spar over issues related 
> to censorship and harassment.
>
> The Supreme Court accepted the case on Friday. It is the first case taken by a reconstituted high court after Justice 
> Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation earlier this month.
>
> On its face, the case has nothing to do with social media at all. Rather, the facts of the case concern public access 
> television, and two producers who claim they were punished for expressing their political views. The producers, 
> DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Melendez, say that Manhattan Neighborhood Network suspended them for expressing views that 
> were critical of the network.
>
> In making the argument to the justices that the case was worthy of review, attorneys for MNN said the court could use 
> the case to resolve a lingering dispute over the power of social media companies to regulate the content on their 
> platforms.
>
> While the First Amendment is meant to protect citizens against government attempts to limit speech, there are certain 
> situations in which private companies can be subject to First Amendment liability. Attorneys for MNN have made the 
> case that social media companies are clearly not government actors. But in raising the question, they have provided 
> the Supreme Court an opportunity to weigh in.
>
> "We stand at a moment when the very issue at the heart of this case—the interplay between private entities, 
> nontraditional media, and the First Amendment—has been playing out in the courts, in other branches of government, 
> and in the media itself," attorneys for MNN wrote in their final plea to the justices to take up the case.
>
> A ruling against MNN on the broad question it has asked the court to consider could open social media companies to 
> First Amendment suits, which would force them to limit the actions they take to control the content on their 
> platforms.
>
> The court could also rule more narrowly against MNN in a way that does not impact the companies.
>
> The case is likely to get extra attention as it moves forward given Republican lawmakers' increasing attacks against 
> social media companies for perceived partisanship. Those attacks have raised the specter that the court, which has 
> served as a bulwark for conservative expression, could step in.
>
> Some observers have expressed caution, saying that the justices are unlikely to rule in a way that could 
> substantially impact social media companies.
>
> Michael Pachter, a former tax attorney who covers Twitter as an analyst at Wedbush Securities, said he thought it was 
> "extremely unlikely" that the court will issue a ruling that hamstrings social media companies, particularly given 
> the court's deference to business interests.
>
> If the court does place serious limits on how the companies can restrict the speech on their platforms, he said, it 
> would make the networks more hostile, alienating their users and advertisers.
>
> "[Twitter] is an uncivil place as it is," Pachter said. "But it will become less civil."
>
> Courts in California and New Jersey have weighed in on the issue, finding that social media companies don't 
> constitute state actors subject to First Amendment liability. A federal judge in New York ruled in May that the First 
> Amendment protected users interacting with parts of Twitter, including the president's feed. But that ruling did not 
> apply to Twitter as a whole.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/wa8dzp



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-a538de84&post_id=20181017153000:07CD4F40-D243-11E8-86EF-CA3F5ABF3513
Powered by Listbox: https://www.listbox.com