Google Supreme Court Case Tests Whether Tech Firms Are Liable for User Content
Section 230 helped the internet flourish. Now its scope is under scrutiny.
Section 230 helped the internet flourish. Now its scope is under scrutiny.
"[P]ublic access is designed not only to allow the press and the public to follow high-profile cases, but also to permit ongoing and future access. Law students or legal scholars review case files for law review articles, attorneys review past cases when similar litigation arises, and litigation may be a source of information for policy-makers considering, for example, safety regulations or for journalists reporting more broadly on either the courts or the subject matter of particular litigation."
The University of Washington thus wasn't barred by the First Amendment from disclosing such names in response to a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals public records request.
No success for the plaintiffs, at least at this stage.
"Today's decision is a victory for the First Amendment that should be celebrated by everyone who hopes to see the internet continue as a place where even difficult and contentious issues can be debated and discussed freely," said one attorney.
... Without Due Process Rights (in the Private Sector Workplace)?"
Gonzalez v. Google presents the Supreme Court’s first opportunity to weigh in on Section 230.
Plus: New York "hate speech" law is likely unconstitutional, FTC Commissioner quits because of chair Lina Khan's antics, and more...
A government-supported organization's controversial ratings of online news sources illustrate the challenge of deciding what qualifies as disinformation.
when plaintiff's "connection to his trees [was] rooted in a vague and indeterminate concept of spirituality, quantum physics, and cosmic mechanics."
Reason is listed among the "ten riskiest online news outlets" by a government-funded disinfo tracker.
Plus: Government regulation of speech is on trial, biohackers flock to experimental charter city in Honduras, and more…
was an unconstitutional delegation of government power, an Arizona trial judge held.
Because of a series of misleading memes, a troll has been charged with conspiracy "to injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
"If I disagreed or offered another opinion, I was told I had cognitive dissonance," Josh Diemert says.
The panel was moderated by Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho, and included former Solicitor General Paul Clement, Prof. Renee Lettow Lerner, legal journalist David Lat, lawyer Jay Edelson, and me.
A defendant's telling his lawyer, "when I get out of here, I'm going to get that judge" and "I don't make threats[,] I make promises" isn't a true threat, the court holds.
"I pray wherever I go, inside my head, for the people around me," said one priest. "How can it be a crime for a priest to pray?"
Plus: Missouri's "Don't Say Gay" bill, exempting parents from income tax, and more...
A rogues’ gallery of institutions that anybody with an independent mind should skip.
The paper is unfazed by First Amendment objections to the Biden administration's crusade against "misinformation" on social media.
Plus: Some State of the Union fact checking, a livestream discussion about gun rights and violence, and more...
Congress should set its sights on bad government actors who pressured social media companies.
"We are a museum that promotes equality, and your hats do not promote equality.”
"Defendant White would go on to accuse Ms. Erlick of sexually abusing and—most importantly, including by Defendant White’s own reckoning—causing the death of the person (Danie) who made the accusation."
The age verification proposal is a disaster for both children and adults.
Threats of suicide and of disclosing an ex's sexual orientation may count as threats for harassment purposes (for the non-polyamorous as much as for the polyamorous, of course).