Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social

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.

Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their users

This could be HUGE. Normally I would not welcome an attempt at regulation of how companies run their businesses, but, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are more like modern day utilities.

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.

a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

This will be VERY interesting to follow! The implications of the potential ruling on this case could have FAR reaching affects internet-wide. Thanks for the heads-up!

TheBorg :-)

a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

I read this in the other thread and went to look for the actual petition.

I don't think it will have the impact the MSM is saying it might have at all.

Here is the link for the petition to SCOTUS:

www.supremecourt.gov...

It's unlikely the court would decide in either way in a manner that would impact social media. The facts presented in this case are very narrow.

Moreover, the 1st amendment social media issue has already be addressed in a number of recent cases:

Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram are all
popular social media venues used for sharing political
opinion. And, though they are all privately owned and
operated, they are subject to numerous federal and state
laws, exist because the government created the Internet,
and are utilized by all levels of government. But applying
the traditional state actor analysis should still lead to the
conclusion that these entities and their employees are not
state actors.

See, e.g., Prager Univ. v. Google LLC, No. 17-cv-06064, 2018 WL 1471939, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2018)
(dismissing First Amendment claims against YouTube and Google);

Shulman v. Facebook.com, No. 17-cv-00764, 2017 WL 5129885, at *4 (D.N.J. Nov. 6, 2017) (Facebook not
constitutional state actor). Under the new test announced by the Majority, it is not so clear that these entities are
divorced from state action.

But who knows, I guess anything is possible.

You don't have free speech on social media if they can censor your speech on their own whim.

The power these companies hold (tech companies being far left) and harbor is far too consolidated in the hands of few. They can edit messages (see the reddit scam of 2017) and censor or ban any topic they deem offensive or wrong. In some cases, ruining careers or livelyhoods along the way.

It's not free speech if these social media companies can silence your dissidence.

a reply to: havok

So if you create a web site that allows for people to post comments, you are OK with not having control of what get posted and no ability to remove comments for whatever reason?

a reply to: roadgravel

If you create and website and advertise your site as a publishing platform open to anyone to use and then post guidelines and so long as users stay within those, they are told they can do as they like, but then you start banning people for no reason, what then?

Don't scoff. This has been happening to a number of conservative voices on certain platforms. The most recent is Twitter's banning of GayPatriot. The notice of account suspension carried no reason for the suspension except violation of rules and when Twitter was asked what was offensive, the only response was a perma-ban, still with no explanation as to which posts had offended.

This same scenario has repeated lately for a lot of conservatives. We're talking some of them not even really using harsh language. Certainly no more than I generally do.

And the pattern is always the same - notification of account suspension, and when account holder asks to know specifically what offended so as to avoid trouble again, they receive perma-ban still with no explanation of what caused the trouble.

The only explanation that can be reached is that it is conservative thought that offends, but they can't say it otherwise, they would look like the partisan hacks they claim not to be, and of course, it puts the lie to their claim they their platform is free and open to all.

a reply to: ketsuko

Welcome to the world.

That action should have people questioning the site but it's not illegal and the government should not be able to force the site to change.

The "banned" people and followers start their own site. If their speech is so meaningful they will have viewers in no time.

Many sites have been acting this way since the internet started.

a reply to: roadgravel

It's a truth in advertising issue.

If they don't want speech on certain topics or from certain viewpoints, they need to say so and stop banning out of the blue. Stop pretending to be the free and open platform they are clearly not.

If you advertise blue raspberry flavor and then you don't have it, that's a problem. It's not a problem because you're a private company and you aren't required to have blue raspberry. That's clearly your decision to make. No one forces you to have one flavor or another. No. It's a problem because you told people you had blue raspberry when you clearly do not.

If they don't want speech on certain topics or from certain viewpoints, they need to say so and stop banning out of the blue. Stop pretending to be the free and open platform they are clearly not.

So that site would not be what some might call an honest site. The word should go out and people move on. Truth in website speech allowance rules (?) - just change the rules every day or hour.

Why do people feel the need for the government to make people do what they want. Good new is, it that happens, every site will have speech that it doesn't like forced upon them. How about sites that don't allow comment to be forced to allow them, while we are at it.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: havok

So if you create a web site that allows for people to post comments, you are OK with not having control of what get posted and no ability to remove comments for whatever reason?

lol. It's a little more complicated than that. To open up a communication network to the masses, on such a scale, so information can be shared faster and more effective, but then stop the communication of some because of political differences actually invites our political government into your business.


Kind of like the Christian baker who didn't want to decorate a cake for a gay wedding.

The arguments against net neutrality should apply here. We know the government will eventually spin it in favor of what money and power wants.

originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman
This could be HUGE. Normally I would not welcome an attempt at regulation of how companies run their businesses, but, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are more like modern day utilities.

No they aren't. Data is more like a utility, which is what your ISP does. Individual websites aren't much different from a tv station or appliance manufacturer.

originally posted by: roadgravel
The arguments against net neutrality should apply here. We know the government will eventually spin it in favor of what money and power wants.

This case has nothing to do with net neutrality.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: havok

So if you create a web site that allows for people to post comments, you are OK with not having control of what get posted and no ability to remove comments for whatever reason?

No.
I am against selective editting because of political ties or opinions. If someone can post about "killing white people" and it stays, I have a problem.

I believe these companies have a nefarious agenda to shut down any speech that doesn't fit their political or personal narrative.

Free speech is allowing any voice to be heard, regardless if you agree with it or not. I am not referring to "hate" speech but one could make a case about it because "Killing white people" is hate speech.

This was covered in the thread yesterday as Loam pointed out, it's a very click bait-y title and the chance this impacts social media is nearly zero.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: roadgravel
The arguments against net neutrality should apply here. We know the government will eventually spin it in favor of what money and power wants.

This case has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Duh.

I am saying the ideas of business structure anduse argued apply here.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

the chance this impacts social media is nearly zero.

That is what I hope that is the case but we never know.

originally posted by: roadgravel
That is what I hope that is the case but we never know.

If you read the filing it is about Time Warner's management of the local New York City public access station. Social media is not even mentioned.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

A lot of my posts were in response to a member suggesting sites should be forced to do certain things. That took over the discussion.

originally posted by: roadgravel
A lot of my posts were in response to a member suggesting sites should be forced to do certain things. That took over the discussion.

I saw that. Check out the filing that Loam linked, it's informative.