Corbin Barthold, Ari Cohn, and Santana Boulton from TechFreedom tackle recent Supreme Court cases impacting online speech. They dive into the implications of key rulings like Moody v. NetChoice, expressing concerns about legislating without accountability. Justice Kagan’s progressive stance surprisingly earns praise, while Justice Alito's frustrations are also highlighted. The trio debates the future of free speech amidst rising content moderation challenges, and they critically assess age-gating of adult content and its implications for First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court's cautious rulings on online speech cases highlight significant uncertainty about the future of First Amendment protections in the digital landscape.
Discussions on the Free Speech Coalition versus Paxton case emphasize the chilling effects of age verification laws on lawful adult expression and First Amendment rights.
The complexities of First Amendment challenges reveal critical misunderstandings about government interactions with social media platforms and the implications for free speech advocacy.
Deep dives
The Supreme Court's Inaction on First Amendment Protections
The Supreme Court is facing significant cases related to online speech that could fundamentally alter First Amendment protections for the internet. Recently, the Court has taken cases like Net Choice and Murthy versus Missouri without issuing substantial rulings, which has left much uncertainty regarding state control over social media platforms. Court decisions in the previous term indicated both support for editorial control by platforms but simultaneously did not resolve many key issues, such as the constitutionality of specific state laws. This hesitation to make definitive rulings raises questions about the future of online speech and whether the Court is strategically avoiding setting a broad precedent.
The Challenges of Facial Challenges in Court
The discussion highlights the complexities and challenges posed by facial challenges in First Amendment cases, as demonstrated in the Net Choice case. The Supreme Court found that the lower courts needed to more precisely assess whether the laws in question had a substantial number of unconstitutional applications. The justices were particularly cautious about procedural issues and standing, which hampered the ability to address the broader implications of state laws on social media content moderation. This cautious approach may stifle lower courts' efforts to clarify how the First Amendment should be applied to the evolving digital landscape.
The Murthy Case and Government Interaction with Social Media
In the Murthy versus Missouri case, states sought to litigate against the government due to perceived censorship by social media platforms, claiming a conspiracy to suppress conservative viewpoints. The oral arguments revealed critical misunderstandings of First Amendment principles by the plaintiffs, as they attempted to portray the government’s actions as a violation of free speech. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing, signaling a lack of viable claims regarding government coercion. The failure of this case underscores the need for clearer standards on government interactions with platforms to navigate the complexities of free expression in the digital age.
The Implications of Age Verification Laws
The discussion of Free Speech Coalition versus Paxton centers on Texas's legislation requiring age verification for access to adult content, which poses challenges for online speech. Studies suggest that only a small percentage of users comply with such age verification requirements, leading to fears that the laws effectively limit lawful adult access to sexual expression. The case raises critical questions about whether such laws infringe upon free speech rights and whether the underlying intent is to diminish access to adult content entirely. Advocates for free expression argue that the chilling effect caused by these laws contravenes First Amendment protections, emphasizing that barriers to adult content access do not equate to child protection.
Balancing Free Speech with Societal Concerns
Debates on the regulation of pornography and free speech often intertwine with societal concerns about the impact of such content on youth and broader cultural norms. The conversation highlights the difficulty in establishing a definitive link between adult content and societal harms, which complicates efforts to restrict such speech. Critics of age verification laws argue that a blanket approach fails to consider individual responsibility and parental controls as more effective alternatives for protecting minors online. The tension between protecting societal values and ensuring free speech rights remains a central theme in ongoing legal discussions surrounding Internet governance and content moderation.
TechFreedom’s Corbin Barthold, Ari Cohn, and Santana Boulton partake in a summer doldrums bitchfest about recent and upcoming Supreme Court internet speech cases.
Topics include:
SCOTUS ducks in Moody v. NetChoice
Hey, let’s *not* reward bad-faith legislating
Justice Kagan: progressive traitor (and we love it)