- Joined
- Apr 18, 2019
For great justice...
Greer v. Moon, No. 20-cv-00647 (D. Utah Sep. 16, 2020)
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2022
for anyone who is interested in how the supreme court justices are currently handling issues concerning the internet, social media, and free speech, this was posted today on eff's newsletter.
it's a pbs news hour segment (about 9 minutes long) from last week, concerning oral arguments in a case between social media platforms and anti-censorship litigation in texas and florida. the case itself is something that null has discussed on mati (whether social media platforms ought to be considered as publishers / editors, or as common carriers). in this case, the platforms are arguing that it's their first amendment right to censor / edit / remove content as they see fit, while the states (texas and florida) have passed laws forbidding the platforms from doing so. notably, the eff published this because they filed an amicus brief on behalf of the platforms (as they wave their shit-covered rainbow censorship flag), while the institute for free speech (ifs) filed an amicus brief on behalf of the states.
it's an ass-backwards case, but the pbs segment is interesting because (at about 3:00) it features an interview with a supreme court analyst who has been present for the arguments, and who actually seems to know what's happening with the court. the analyst highlights some of the concerns being voiced by the justices with regard to the language around freedom of speech on the internet. essentially, the supreme court is comprised of tech-illiterate boomers who do not understand the implications of some of the lower courts' decisions. fortunately, the justices seem to be at least somewhat aware that such decisions may be applied much more broadly than anticipated, with significant unintended consequences, should the court fail to respond appropriately.
in the words of the analyst:
it's a pbs news hour segment (about 9 minutes long) from last week, concerning oral arguments in a case between social media platforms and anti-censorship litigation in texas and florida. the case itself is something that null has discussed on mati (whether social media platforms ought to be considered as publishers / editors, or as common carriers). in this case, the platforms are arguing that it's their first amendment right to censor / edit / remove content as they see fit, while the states (texas and florida) have passed laws forbidding the platforms from doing so. notably, the eff published this because they filed an amicus brief on behalf of the platforms (as they wave their shit-covered rainbow censorship flag), while the institute for free speech (ifs) filed an amicus brief on behalf of the states.
it's an ass-backwards case, but the pbs segment is interesting because (at about 3:00) it features an interview with a supreme court analyst who has been present for the arguments, and who actually seems to know what's happening with the court. the analyst highlights some of the concerns being voiced by the justices with regard to the language around freedom of speech on the internet. essentially, the supreme court is comprised of tech-illiterate boomers who do not understand the implications of some of the lower courts' decisions. fortunately, the justices seem to be at least somewhat aware that such decisions may be applied much more broadly than anticipated, with significant unintended consequences, should the court fail to respond appropriately.
in the words of the analyst:
Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors.
- Amna Nawaz:
The Supreme Court heard arguments today in a highly consequential case navigating First Amendment protections on social media.
Tech companies are taking on state laws, decrying conservative censorship online. A decision here could fundamentally change the use of speech on the Internet.
The Supreme Court is wading into a digital age First Amendment battle. Do social media companies have the right to decide what appears on and what's removed from their own platforms? That is the question at the heart of two major cases heard today by the justices.
A decision here could give government the power to change what millions of people see online. After sites like Twitter and Facebook removed former President Donald Trump following the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Texas and Florida passed laws restricting how these platforms moderate and remove content and users from their Web sites.
But tech industry groups sued the states. - Alan Gura, Vice President for Litigation, Institute for Free Speech:
Whether it happens to a conservative group or to a liberal group or to any other kind of group, OK, people in America should be able to access the modern public square to express themselves. It does tend to be conservative groups that are under the thumb more of some of these social media sites. - Amna Nawaz:
Alan Gura with the Institute for Free Speech filed an amicus brief with conservative activist group Moms for Liberty in support of the states. - Alan Gura:
Moms for Liberty had a problem.
The teachers union, their sort of traditional political adversary, went to Facebook and put pressure on Facebook and said, look, the people who are promoting disinformation, and, instead, Moms' chapters saw all kinds of post blocked, things that were very innocuous, things like, are you ready to run for school board or questions about, hey, does anybody know what curriculum is being used by a school district? - David Greene, Electronic Frontier Foundation:
I think we can all agree that content moderation is a process is really problematic. I don't think the right solution to that is to give the government the ability to impose its own editorial viewpoints on private actors. I think that's a dangerous power to hand the government. - Amna Nawaz:
David Greene is with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and filed a brief opposing the states. - David Greene:
Social media sites have a First Amendment right to curate and edit their sites according to their own curatorial and editorial philosophies and policies. That is a right that others in their position have, whether they be art curators or parade organizers. - Amna Nawaz:
But are tech companies publishers. Gura and the states don't think so. - Alan Gura:
Whose speech is it? And nobody thinks that your speech is the company's speeches. Obviously, your speech, if I pick up the phone and talk to you today, it won't be AT&T's speech, and AT&T can't unplug me because they don't like my politics. - Amna Nawaz:
That back-and-forth is what the justices themselves navigated today.
Marcia Coyle was in the courtroom and joins us now.
Marcia, it's great to see you. - Marcia Coyle:
Good to see you. - Amna Nawaz:
These are big issues here, free speech and content moderation and social media platforms.
How did the justices seem to be navigating and examining these issues today? - Marcia Coyle:
Well, I think it's a difficult one. Just as you said, for many levels, they're having trouble.
And — but they asked good questions. Most of the arguments focused on, as one of your speakers just said, whether social media platforms fall into a category of newspaper publishers, where they can pretty much determine how they use the content they have, or are they more like common carriers, such as a telegraph or anything that carries a message from point A to B, but doesn't do anything else?
So they also struggled with language. Justice Alito asked at one point, well, what is content moderation? Is it just another way of saying censorship? And there were other words, too, that created problems. So this is a difficult case for them on more levels than just determining which category to put social media platforms into. - Amna Nawaz:
I mean, the concerns around censorship online have long been more of a conservative issue. Did we hear questions from the conservative justices that seemed to align with that view or to challenge it? - Marcia Coyle:
No, not at all.
And it seemed as though, as they struggled with the categories of newspapers versus common carriers, that they weren't focused at all on politics or ideology. This is clearly an attempt to become very familiar with what social media does, what these platforms do. And that's one of the problems that they're having in the case.
They didn't know how broadly these laws sweep. Justice Barrett, for example, pointed out, well, some say these laws could cover Venmo, Uber, e-mail. - Amna Nawaz:
Not just limited to social media platforms. - Marcia Coyle:
Exactly, e-mail, direct messaging. And they don't know. In fact, as they asked the lawyers, they said, well, they might — it might cover them.
And why don't they know? Because the way the case came to the Supreme Court, there was no trial below on the merits to flesh all this out through discovery. - Amna Nawaz:
Well, I want to ask you about the arguments on both sides of the debate here.
And we did speak earlier with Jameel Jaffer of The Knight Institute, who argues that actually both sides of the debate have some merit to their arguments. Take a listen. - Jameel Jaffer, Knight First Amendment Institute:
Everybody involved in it claims to be a champion of free speech and the First Amendment. You have the social media platforms claiming that they are speakers and editors here and that these laws are a form of censorship of their First Amendment-protected activity.
And on the other side, then you have the states arguing that these laws are intended to protect the free speech rights of social media platforms' users. The truth is that everybody has a point. You need to find a way of accounting for all of the First Amendment interests in play here. - Amna Nawaz:
Marcia, for an issue as core as free speech, we're talking about the First Amendment here, and as broad and influential as these social media platforms, what are the implications of a decision like this? - Marcia Coyle:
Well, it depends on who wins and who loses. If the platforms lose, they claim that they will have to put all kind of speech on their platforms, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
And their desire, their rules that they have to try to get a handle on hate speech, on bullying, they will have to also put up pro-bullying and pro-hate speech, that they just will not be able to exercise the editorial discretion they have. On the other hand, the states don't think that there's going to be a parade of horribles, that there are other ways to deal with that kind of bad speech. - Amna Nawaz:
So does all of this say to you that the justices are more likely to try to keep this as narrow as possible? - Marcia Coyle:
Yes, it does.
In fact, I think, because they don't know how broadly the law sweeps, they did talk — I will say, though, that it seemed to me they were more inclined to view platforms as closer to newspapers and publishers than to common carriers.
But because they don't know how broad the law sweeps, they did talk about keeping injunctions that are in place right now that temporarily keep the laws on hold, but sending the cases back to the lower court in order to flesh out a lot of these issues. - Amna Nawaz:
We should mention too this is one of a handful of cases the justices are considering about social media.
Precedent here is hard, right? A lot of it predates the Internet era. What should we understand about why the justices are taking up these cases and how they're viewing them? - Marcia Coyle:
Amna, I think this is just the inevitability of how things have changed and there are challenges and they come to the court. So I'm not surprised that they're getting more and more into this and having more and more cases come to them.
Just this term, not only do we have the two cases from Florida and Texas, but there are two additional cases that they already heard arguments in that really involve public officials and how they use their Web sites and whether they can block commenters on their Web sites.
So, I think we're going to see these cases come in a variety of situations. And it's a new world for the justices. For many of them, it's a new world. - Amna Nawaz:
A lot to make sense of at the Supreme Court. We're so glad you're here to help us do it all!
(Laughter) - Amna Nawaz:
Marcia Coyle, thank you so much. Great to see you. - Marcia Coyle:
My pleasure, Amna.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
I'm wondering how many of the clerks of the court will go to Kiwifarms to see what it's about. We might theoretically end up with some more lolcows from the liberal side of the bench. Would we need to issue a PSA to not dox anyone who works for the SCOTUS court?
Is there any timeline as to when scotus would decide to take on or reject the case? Did it take the expected time for the case to be added to the docket?
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2022
Where are you getting this info? I'm new to all this but according to the SCOTUS Case Distribution Schedule:
List 1 petitions have their conference held 2 weeks after the distribution date which isn't really known because it seems they wait for the respondent to file a brief in opposition.
There Is Light At The End
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2021
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2022
I say if they can't read the sign-up warning they're fair game.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
Imagine the 'splaining
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2016
we're nowhere near that yet
IF they grant cert, I don't see why he wouldn't show up (but he can't actually participate in oral arguments, were they to be held)
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
I bet Clarence Thomas's based clerk, Crystal "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE" Clanton, is at least a lurker. This is the face of a woman who laughs at deathfats and trannies.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
Imagine being such a massive racist that you voluntarily work for a black man.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2023
I'm curious what the make-up of the 99% of rejected/cert-denied cases actually is. How many are death penalty appeals or just general bullshit cases? How many of them are similar to this case, where a lower court straight up goes against SCOTUS and they're just like "nah".
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
Democrat racism is assuming everyone different from you are children that you're obligated to give a helping hand in life. Republican racism is acknowledging that different racial groups have their own culture and values that are incompatible with your own, but it's possible to establish ground rules for interaction.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2023
She's clearly at least somewhat of a visionary and will understand.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
From the dates they reject cases. Keep in mind the original question. That said, feel free to use these adjusted dates instead: April 15, April 22, April 29, May 13, May 20, May 28, etc.
It took about as long as any case, which is to say, yeah.
No.
Yeah, I suppose if he had lawyers, he could show up.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
We need to add a captcha that screams at them and calls them niggers if they try to sign up with a supremecourt.gov email address.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2019
Given the dire understanding in America of what the Supreme Court of the USA is actually there for, I suspect there are a tonne of such petitions.
I don't think the entire cocaine output of South America could make me as happy as if Clarence Thomas signed up with an account here. I'll say this - the conversations would be fascinating to both sides. Sadly, I suspect he's a very busy man and not inclined to hang out with us.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
The problem is that bigblackdick@supremecourt.gov is NOT Thomas.
Tismguide
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2020
Assuming I can either donate a dollar to FIRE, donate it to the EFF, or light it on fire, which should I even do at this point?
I can understand their position logically/philosophically but they're (morally) wrong here. Between this, their tacit acceptance of girltalk tactics, and refusal to help on the Greer appeal to the 10th circuit, I'm frustrated by the EFF. At the same time, they did do the Protect the Stack thing, and as recently as his Heterodorx appearance (IIRC) Null still thought they did net good for the Cause overall.
I understand they're in SF, full of pozzed people, and have to make some compromises, but when they're actively filing pro-censorship amicus briefs, it's hard to stomach.
I'm not a Supreme Court justice, but I'd say the same thing if I were.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
No, bro, you have to let them defame you as a mass murderer, and defame your base as mass murderers too. Because that's how EFF keeps defending us. By consistently accusing us of being mass murderers conducting genocide.
Tismguide
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2020
They can tell whatever lies about us they like and ignore cases involving the forum provided they are effective and consistent at achieving legislation and rulings that allow this place to exist by picking and choosing their battles, and I'd still rather support them than burn the money.
Through that lens, do they do more good or harm?