How a SCOTUS decision from 1946 can be used to ensure that users on platforms like Facebook enjoy basic due process protections against removal/deplatforming
or that it shouldn't be, anyway. https://lpeproject.org/... Neil Turkewitz / @neilturkewitz : @JameelJaffer @Dahlialithwick Overbroad interpretation of the First Amendment “disables legislatures from enacting laws necessary to protect individual privacy & maybe even necessary to protect the integrity of public discourse, which is supposed to be what the First Amendment is all about.” cc: @ma_franks Ruben Carranza / @rcarranza_ : BRILLIANT: A social media company isn't exempt from free speech regulation just because it's privately-owned: ‘[It has] a duty to [keep] channels of communication open because [it] voluntarily & for profit turns its property into part of the public realm.’ https://lpeproject.org/... Genevieve Lakier / @glakier : @NelsonTebbe and I have a new piece on how we think the First A could and should apply to the social media platforms. Tldr: the First Amendment Qs raised by content moderation are NOT easy, or shouldN'T be. https://lpeproject.org/... Nikolas Guggenberger / @nikenberger : There is “good reason to prefer a public battle [] over the meaning and scope of democratic speech on the platforms than to put our faith solely in non-transparent, unelected, and profit-motivated corporate actors.” by @NelsonTebbe, @glakier via @LPEblog https://lpeproject.org/... @lpeblog : Today @NelsonTebbe and @glakier argue for a deep rethinking of the way the First Amendment works. Time to reject the strict public/private divide and start to think functionally about the power to police speech. Luckily, earlier case law provides a frame https://lpeproject.org/... UChicago Law / @uchicagolaw : “Despite the vigorous debate about freedom of speech raised by the deplatforming [of President Trump], there was wide agreement—at least among lawyers—that the First Amendment provided no help in answering.” Genevieve Lakier in the @LPE_Project blog: https://lpeproject.org/... Casey Newton / @caseynewton : Fascinating piece about how a 1946 Supreme Court decision could be used to force Facebook et al to grant users due process before they are deplatformed. I learned a ton here from @glakier and @NelsonTebbe https://lpeproject.org/... Evelyn Douek / @evelyndouek : “We do not want to have to choose bt John Roberts & Zuck as the guardians of democracy, though that is what current doctrine seems to require. Luckily the contemp framework is not the only one available” Great from @glakier & @NelsonTebbe A few thoughts https://lpeproject.org/...
Fascinating piece about how a 1946 Supreme Court decision could be used to force Facebook et al to grant users due process before they are deplatformed. I learned a ton here from @glakier and @NelsonTebbe https://lpeproject.org/...
It's generally assumed the First Amendment has very little to say about private actors. But it wasn't always this way, and it's worth questioning whether this state of affairs is really serving us. Great piece by @glakier &@NelsonTebbe https://lpeproject.org/...
@neilturkewitz @JameelJaffer @Dahlialithwick @ma_franks But is it an overbroad interpretation of the First Amendment or just the wrong interpretation of the First Amendment? See.... https://lpeproject.org/...
“We do not want to have to choose bt John Roberts & Zuck as the guardians of democracy, though that is what current doctrine seems to require. Luckily the contemp framework is not the only one available” Great from @glakier & @NelsonTebbe A few thoughts https://lpeproject.org/...
When Twitter de-platformed Trump, I said the First Amendment question was easy but all the other questions were hard. In this piece, @glakier and @NelsonTebbe argue that the First Amendment question isn't actually easy—or that it shouldn't be, anyway. https://lpeproject.org/...
@JameelJaffer @Dahlialithwick Overbroad interpretation of the First Amendment “disables legislatures from enacting laws necessary to protect individual privacy & maybe even necessary to protect the integrity of public discourse, which is supposed to be what the First Amendment is…
BRILLIANT: A social media company isn't exempt from free speech regulation just because it's privately-owned: ‘[It has] a duty to [keep] channels of communication open because [it] voluntarily & for profit turns its property into part of the public realm.’ https://lpeproject.org/…
@NelsonTebbe and I have a new piece on how we think the First A could and should apply to the social media platforms. Tldr: the First Amendment Qs raised by content moderation are NOT easy, or shouldN'T be. https://lpeproject.org/...
There is “good reason to prefer a public battle [] over the meaning and scope of democratic speech on the platforms than to put our faith solely in non-transparent, unelected, and profit-motivated corporate actors.” by @NelsonTebbe, @glakier via @LPEblog https://lpeproject.org/..…
Today @NelsonTebbe and @glakier argue for a deep rethinking of the way the First Amendment works. Time to reject the strict public/private divide and start to think functionally about the power to police speech. Luckily, earlier case law provides a frame https://lpeproject.org/..…
“Despite the vigorous debate about freedom of speech raised by the deplatforming [of President Trump], there was wide agreement—at least among lawyers—that the First Amendment provided no help in answering.” Genevieve Lakier in the @LPE_Project blog: https://lpeproject.org/...