Media
What Is the Future of Social Media Regulation? – The Regulatory Review
Justice Thomas signals the potential for regulation of social media platforms and their power over speech.
In early April, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute. The ruling was largely insignificant, as the Court held that the case was moot. The concurrence issued by Justice Clarence Thomas, however, sent both the legal world and many parts of the internet abuzz. In his opinion, Justice Thomas issued the first words from the Supreme Court concerning the current debate around the power of social media platforms, writing:
Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties. We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.
Although most Americans agree that social media companies have too much political power, consensus on the appropriate government response has been far more elusive. Some states have already begun to take some degree of action against perceived biases in online platforms. In Texas, for example, a proposed law would treat social media companies like common carriers and prohibit “deplatforming” based on viewpoint. Also, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has proposed a law that would protect political candidates from being banned on social media.
Justice Thomas’s concurrence appears to favor a position similar to the proposed Texas law. In his opinion, he cited the 1994 case Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, in which the Court required cable operators to carry broadcast signals. Discussing Turner, Justice Thomas questioned why—if telephone companies are required to act as common carriers—digital platforms could not be treated in a similar fashion.
In addition, even accepting the private property arguments made by opponents of social media regulation, some form of regulation would not be unprecedented. In his opinion, Justice Thomas cited PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, in which the Court concluded that a state could require a shopping mall to allow protesters to engage in advocacy on private mall property. Similarly, the Court or a legislature could find that citizens have a constitutional right to voice their opinions on social media platforms, despite the private nature of these platforms.
If states begin to pass legislation requiring social media platforms to host any speaker under the reasoning of PruneYard, they could set up a legal battle with the platforms that have used Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a justification for free reign in curating the users of their services. In analyzing Justice Thomas’s opinion, law professor Eugene Volokh of the University of California, Los Angeles wrote that the justice “is anticipating what might be done through legislation, and whether new state laws that do treat platforms as common carriers (more or less) are going to be seen as blocked by the First Amendment or Section 230.” Volokh predicts “that is an issue the Court will likely have to deal with in coming years.” Unless something changes dramatically in how social media companies operate or in the state of political discourse, it seems almost inevitable that this debate will come to a head in the courts.
Much of the current debate echoes similar discussions throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s about the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine required broadcasters that devoted a portion of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest to also air contrasting views on those matters. The fairness doctrine was at the center of the case Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission. It was upheld by the Supreme Court but the FCC abandoned the doctrine in 1987. Some commentators have noted that Justice Thomas’s opinion sounds like a call for a revival of some form of the fairness doctrine.
As a concurrence, Justice Thomas’s opinion does not set any precedent. But it signals that at least one justice is concerned with the current state of the First Amendment. After decades in which online platforms have relied on the protections afforded them by Section 230, is some form of platform regulation possible?
It seems unlikely that a majority of the Court will decide in the foreseeable future to curtail the independence of social media platforms. Law professor Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas at Austin noted that the bigger story behind Justice Thomas’s opinion is that no other member of the Court chose to join him.
For now, the Court is not likely to move one way or another on social media regulation. If, however, some of the proposed state legislation on the matter becomes law, the Court may not have any choice but to address the issue.
Media
CTV National News: Social media giants sued – CTV News
[unable to retrieve full-text content]
CTV National News: Social media giants sued CTV News
Source link
Media
India’s media – captured and censored
|
Across almost every form of media in India – social, broadcast and print – Narendra Modi and the BJP hold sway.
With India amid a national election campaign, its news media is in sharp focus. Until recently it was believed that the sheer diversity of outlets ensured a range of perspectives, but now, India’s mainstream media has largely been co-opted by the Bharatiya Janata Party and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Just how did the media in India get to this point and what does it mean for the upcoming elections?
Featuring:
Ravish Kumar – Former Host, NDTV
Shashi Shekhar Vempati – Former CEO, Prasar Bharati
Pramod Raman – Chief Editor, MediaOne
Amy Kazmin – Former South Asia Bureau Chief, Financial Times
Meena Kotwal – Founder, The Mooknayak
Media
Social media lawsuit launched by Ontario school boards
|
Premier Doug Ford says that lawsuits launched by four Ontario school boards against multiple social media platforms are “nonsense” and risk becoming a distraction to the work that really matters.
The school boards, including three in the Greater Toronto Area, have launched lawsuits seeking $4.5 billion in damages against Snapchat, TikTok, and Meta, the owner of both Facebook and Instagram, for creating products that they allege negligently interfere with student learning and have caused “widespread disruption to the education system.”
But at an unrelated news conference in Ottawa on Friday, Ford said that he “disagrees” with the legal action and worries it could take the focus away from “the core values of education.”
“Let’s focus on math, reading and writing. That is what we need to do, put all the resources into the kids,” he said. “What are they spending lawyers fees to go after these massive companies that have endless cash to fight this? Let’s focus on the kids, not this other nonsense that they are looking to fight in court.”
Four separate but similar statements of claim were filed in Ontario’s Superior Court of JusticSocial media lawsuit launched by Ontario school boards pervasive problems such as distraction, social withdrawal, cyberbullying, a rapid escalation of aggression, and mental health challenges,” Colleen Russell-Rawlins, the director of education with the Toronto District School Board, said in a news release issued Thursday.
“It is imperative that we take steps to ensure the well-being of our youth. We are calling for measures to be implemented to mitigate these harms and prioritize the mental health and academic success of our future generation.”
The school boards are represented by Toronto-based law firm Neinstein LLP and the news release states that school boards “will not be responsible for any costs related to the lawsuit unless a successful outcome is reached.”
These lawsuits come as hundreds of school districts in the United States file similar suits.
“A strong education system is the foundation of our society and our community. Social media products and the changes in behaviour, judgement and attention that they cause pose a threat to that system and to the student population our schools serve,” Duncan Embury, the head of litigation at Neinstein LLP, said in the new release.
“We are proud to support our schools and students in this litigation with the goal of holding social media giants accountable and creating meaningful change.”
-
Art20 hours ago
Nick Cave on love, art and the loss of his sons: ‘It’s against nature to bury your children’ – The Guardian
-
Real eState20 hours ago
A settlement in a U.S. lawsuit could upend the cornerstone of real estate industry: commissions
-
Real eState18 hours ago
The Homeowners Who Beat the National Association of Realtors
-
Sports16 hours ago
Senators score 5 in 1st, cruise past Sabres
-
Economy16 hours ago
Canadian economy starts the year on a rebound with 0.6 per cent growth in January
-
Tech14 hours ago
Take-Two Buys Gearbox And Its New ‘Borderlands’ Game From Embracer
-
Politics21 hours ago
Federal government promising a 'renters' bill of rights' in upcoming budget – CBC.ca
-
Politics7 hours ago
Recall Gondek group planned to launch its own petition before political novice did – CBC.ca