The Government's 1st Amendment Interest in Ensuring Free Expression

Wednesday, September 13, 2023

Last month, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar filed a brief in the petitions for certiorari for two of what could be the most important Supreme Court cases ever in their impact on the internet.

Posted by LampLighter at 10:32 AM | 8 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article...

... Last month, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar filed a brief in the petitions for certiorari for two of what could be the most important Supreme Court cases ever in their impact on the internet. The cases, Moody v. NetChoice, and NetChoice v. Paxton, arise out of Florida and Texas laws that limit the ability of social media platforms to remove or otherwise moderate user content. The Florida law was struck down by the Eleventh Circuit as violating the platforms' First Amendment rights, while the Texas law was upheld by the Fifth Circuit.

The solicitor general properly urges the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in these cases, both because the legal issues are important and because the cases represent a circuit split on a fundamental question of First Amendment law. The government also"correctly, in our view"points out serious flaws in both the Florida and Texas laws, flaws that may well be big enough to justify striking both down.

But the solicitor general's reasoning is troubling. ...

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-09-12 01:14 AM | Reply

A Lawfare deep dive.

imo, worth a read if you're interested in this topic.

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-09-12 01:15 AM | Reply

btw...

... urges the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in these cases ...

writ of certiorari
www.law.cornell.edu

... A type of writ, meant for rare use, by which an appellate court decides to review a case at its discretion. The word certiorari comes from Law Latin and means "to be more fully informed." A writ of certiorari orders a lower court to deliver its record in a case so that the higher court may review it. The U.S. Supreme Court uses certiorari to select most of the cases it hears. The writ of certiorari is a common law writ, which may be abrogated or controlled entirely by statute or court rules. ...

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-09-12 01:19 AM | Reply

If the government cannot "infringe " the right to bear arms in any way they certainly cannot "abridge" freedom of speech or the press in any way. Accordingly I would expect the Texas law to be struck down.

We'll see how it goes ... or as they like to say in Texas. "We'll see you in court!"

#4 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-09-13 11:43 AM | Reply

... On one hand, it's private-public cooperation. On the other, it's heavy-handed state intervention. We take a look at this important unfolding case

Analysis The USA's Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has narrowed a lower court ruling that ordered the US government not to pressure social media companies to moderate user-posted content.

The decision, published Friday, was hailed by conservative litigation group the New Civil Liberties Alliance as a victory for free speech. But Eric Goldman, a professor, Santa Clara University School of Law, believes Biden administration foes may have scored an own-goal. ...

An interesting analysis.

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-09-13 12:04 PM | Reply

This is a complex issue which is going to continue to cause problems almost no matter how the Supreme Court rules. Theree is really no single position on this matter which is "pro-rightwing" or "pro-leftwing". It is just another another large confusing issue arising out of the Pandora's Box known as the internet. Moderation v. Censorship. Tomato Tomatoe. There has never been a true meeting of community minds on the topic, and now that we have the internet opening public speech up to anyone anywhere the existent chaos and uncertainty is inevitable.

#6 | Posted by moder8 at 2023-09-13 01:28 PM | Reply

@#6 ... This is a complex issue which is going to continue to cause problems almost no matter how the Supreme Court rules. ...

Probably.

Given that the conservative Appeals Court threw out so much of the suit (#5 - "has narrowed") that there may be a question of whether the New Civil Liberties Alliance's claim of a victory is more like licking self-inflicted wounds.

#5 - "Biden administration foes may have scored an own-goal."

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-09-13 02:41 PM | Reply

Update...

Supreme Court temporarily freezes ruling that would curb government contact with social media companies
www.nbcnews.com

... The Supreme Court on Thursday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that would place restrictions on the Biden administration's contact with social media companies.

The brief order issued by conservative Justice Samuel Alito came less than two hours after the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to step in.

It gives the court more time to consider what next steps to take before deciding whether to grant the administration's request. In the meantime, the lower court ruling will remain on hold until midnight on Sept. 22. ...

#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-09-14 04:20 PM | Reply