The through-line of these cases is a critically important principle that sets limits on government’s ability to control the online speech of people who use social media, as well as the social media sites themselves: internet users’ First Amendment rights to speak on social media—whether by posting or commenting—may be infringed by the government if it interferes with content moderation, but will not be infringed by the independent decisions of the platforms themselves.
A lot of legal detail in this post. Here are three key points I pulled out the aricle:
Internet users have a First Amendment right to speak on social media—whether by posting or commenting—and that right may be infringed when the government seeks to interfere with content moderation, but it will not be infringed by the independent decisions of the platforms themselves.
Underlying these rulings is the Supreme Court’s long-awaited recognition that social media platforms routinely moderate users’ speech
This term’s cases also confirm that traditional First Amendment rules apply to social media
A lot of legal detail in this post. Here are three key points I pulled out the aricle:
Internet users have a First Amendment right to speak on social media—whether by posting or commenting—and that right may be infringed when the government seeks to interfere with content moderation, but it will not be infringed by the independent decisions of the platforms themselves.
Underlying these rulings is the Supreme Court’s long-awaited recognition that social media platforms routinely moderate users’ speech
This term’s cases also confirm that traditional First Amendment rules apply to social media