Supreme Court Looks Poised To Gut Restrictive Social Media Laws
The First Amendment restricts governments, not private platforms, and respects editorial rights.
The First Amendment restricts governments, not private platforms, and respects editorial rights.
Supreme Court arguments about two social media laws highlight a dangerous conflation of state and private action.
Maybe the problem for teens isn't screens, but what they are replacing.
The Supreme Court seems inclined to recognize that content moderation is protected by the First Amendment.
Plus: Migrant resettlement, Tom Cotton op-ed scandal, oppressors-in-training, and more...
The laws violate the First Amendment because they require social media sites to abjure most content moderation, and platform speech they disapprove of.
Both states are trying to force tech companies to platform certain sorts of speech.
From limits on liability protections for websites to attempts to regulate the internet like a public utility, these proposals will erode Americans' right to express themselves.
The president criticized companies for selling "smaller-than-usual products" whose "price stays the same." But it was his and his predecessor's spending policies that caused the underlying issue.
"None of these laws prevent kids from viewing anything. They just prevent kids from posting," argues Shoshana Weissmann.
Banning people under age 16 from accessing social media without parental consent "is a breathtakingly blunt instrument" for reducing potential harms, the judge writes.
Maybe the problem for teens isn't screens, but what they are replacing.
Throughout Republican-run Western states, lawmakers are passing legislation that treats adults as if they are children.
The Biden administration's interference with bookselling harks back to a 1963 Supreme Court case involving literature that Rhode Island deemed dangerous.
AI tools churning out images of fake IDs could help people get around online age-check laws.
Plus: A listener asks if it should become the norm for all news outlets to require journalists to disclose their voting records.
The verdict vindicates the constitutional rights that Louisiana sheriff's deputies flagrantly violated when they hauled Waylon Bailey off to jail.
Republicans and Democrats are using emotional manipulation to push an agenda of censorship.
Don't let a moral panic shut everything down.
Priscilla Villarreal, also known as "Lagordiloca," has sparked a debate about free speech and who, exactly, is a journalist.
Social media influencer Caroline Calloway might not be a reliable narrator, but Scammer is an honest memoir nevertheless.
Laws like Utah's would require anyone using social media to prove their age through methods such as submitting biometric data or a government-issued ID.
Where are the misinformation czars and the mainstream media fact-checkers now?
Plus: Chatbots vs. suicidal ideation, Margot Robbie vs. the patriarchy, New York City vs. parents, and more...
The Things Fell Apart host explains how a 1988 quack medical concept inspired George Floyd's death in 2020 and how Plandemic rewrote Star Wars.
The Things Fell Apart host Jon Ronson explains how a 1988 quack medical concept inspired George Floyd's death in 2020 and how Plandemic is basically a rewrite of Star Wars.
It's Super Size Me for internet intellectuals.
In an amicus brief filed in Murthy v. Missouri, they ignore basic tenets of First Amendment law in order to quash online speech they don't like.
Free societies generally leave these matters to individuals and families.
"There has been a deliberate attempt to inflame the public against experts," warned one Davos panelist.
A new lawsuit is challenging a Utah law that requires age verification to use social media and forces minors to get their parents permission first.
The bill is broad enough to target a Saturday Night Live skit lampooning Trump, a comedic impression of Taylor Swift, or a weird ChatGPT-generated image of Ayn Rand.
The errors are so glaring that it's hard not to suspect an underlying agenda at work here.
Stanford's Jay Bhattacharya debates St. John University's Kate Klonick on the federal government's role in social media censorship.
"It's not really a movement. Nobody is pushing it. People are just living it."
Stanford's Jay Bhattacharya debates St. John University's Kate Klonick on the federal government's role in social media censorship.
The brief urges the Supreme Court to reverse its badly misguided precedent in Pruneyard v. Robins.
The former journalist defends misinformation in the Trump era and explains why so many journalists are against free speech.
The webathon is technically over, but if there's one thing journalists understand, it's procrastination.
The ban, scheduled to take effect on January 1, is likely unconstitutional in multiple ways, the judge held.
The 2024 GOP candidate has proposed something blatantly unconstitutional.
"Being a true free speech champion does require that you defend speech that even you disagree with," says libertarian Rikki Schlott.
The Supreme Court considers whether and when banishing irksome constituents violates the First Amendment.
The propensity of prosecutors to jump to conclusions before all the evidence is in is very destructive—and nothing new.
“We've taught young people that any of their missteps or any of their heterodox opinions are grounds to tear them down. That's no way to grow up.”
“We've taught young people that any of their missteps or any of their heterodox opinions are grounds to tear them down. That's no way to grow up.”
Democrats and Republicans are united in thinking their political agendas trump the First Amendment.
Popular podcasts and shows portray crime as salacious and sexy, failing ordinary victims in the process.