The federal government can encourage and even coerce social media platforms into moderating content without violating the First Amendment when there’s compelling public interest, conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices agreed Monday.
Section 230
Amazon is responsible for the decimation of legitimate companies like Planet Green that supply genuinely remanufactured and recycled printer ink cartridges, said Planet Green’s opening brief Friday (docket 23-4434) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It's seeking to reverse the district court’s dismissal of its fraud complaint against Amazon on grounds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields Amazon from liability (see 2312290030). Amazon is the dominant source of foreign-made “clone” printer ink cartridges -- newly manufactured products that are misrepresented to consumers as remanufactured and recycled, when they aren’t, said Planet Green. Amazon imports the falsely labeled clone cartridges from overseas, stores them in its warehouses and distributes them to consumers throughout the U.S., said the brief. It takes "title" to them and “itself sells them directly to consumers in packaging and bearing labels that falsely identifies the clone cartridges as remanufactured or recycled,” it said. Amazon also promotes them through its own statements over the Amazon website, via email and on third-party internet platforms, it said. It also “participates extensively” in the promotion and sale of the clone cartridges by third-party sellers on its website, and “profits handsomely from those sales,” it said. On Section 230, the district court wrongly found that Amazon was entitled to “complete immunity” from Planet Green’s action, “even though its claims arise in significant part from statements, sales, and conduct by Amazon itself that do not constitute the publication of third-party statements over Amazon’s website,” it said. The court also held that Amazon couldn’t be held liable for false and misleading product listings, it said. The district court ultimately gave Amazon a “get-out-of-jail-free card” that would allow it to disregard “any legal obligation to avoid deceiving consumers about printer ink cartridges,” it said. That result “twists” Section 230, which is a statute “focused on limiting liability for the publication of third party statements on the internet, beyond recognition,” it said: “It must be reversed.”
NetChoice wants the California Court of Appeal for the 2nd Appellate District to reverse a trial court’s opinion “that would undermine Section 230’s protections for free discourse online," said its amicus brief Wednesday (docket B335533) with the Chamber of Progress and Team Awareness Combating Overdose, a nonprofit fighting accidental drug overdoses among young adults.
It’s possible social media platforms could be considered common carriers when delivering emails or direct messages, the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative justices said Monday.
Expect a U.S. Supreme Court majority to side with the tech industry in its content moderation fight against social media laws in Florida and Texas, experts told us in interviews last week.
California enacted AB-587, compelling social media companies to disclose their efforts to moderate constitutionally protected speech that the state disfavors, as part of a “concerted effort” to limit or eliminate that speech on social media platforms, said X’s opening brief Wednesday (docket 24-271) at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. X’s appeal seeks to reverse the district court’s denial of its injunction to block AB-587's enforcement (see 2401190038).
There may be no individual in the U.S. “more heavily targeted for social media censorship” by the federal government than Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said his U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief Friday in Murthy v. Missouri (docket 23-411). The brief supports the injunction barring White House officials and four federal agencies from coercing social media platforms to moderate their content.
California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, AB-2273, “is one of the most expansive efforts to censor online speech since the inception of the internet,” said NetChoice’s response brief Wednesday (docket 23-2969) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court in the appeal of California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) to reverse the preliminary injunction that blocks him from enforcing the statute (see 2312140003).
Federal officials “engaged in a far-reaching unconstitutional censorship campaign orchestrated to circumvent the First Amendment” by pressuring social media platforms to remove content that the federal government finds “objectionable,” said the right-leaning internet show Louder With Crowder in a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief Wednesday in Murthy v. Missouri (docket 23-411) in support of the injunction that bars the officials from coercing the platforms to moderate their content.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., urged the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision and interpret the First Amendment “in a manner consistent with the common-law legal principles that anchor the American constitutional framework,” he said in an amicus brief Tuesday (docket 22-555) in support of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and the Texas social media law.