Two More Courts Tell Litigants That Social Media Services Aren’t State Actors
…media websites are not government actors under the First Amendment)… Prior blog posts on Perez’s lawsuit (1, 2) Selected Related Posts About State Action Claims Government Jawboning Doesn’t Turn Internet…
Government Jawboning Doesn’t Turn Internet Services into State Actors–Doe v. Google
…plaintiffs’ arguments–that the politicians’ jawboning make all subsequent content moderation decisions into state action–are even worse from a policy outcome. As they would say on Reddit, ESH. Joint Action. The…
Facebook Defeats Lawsuit By Publishers of Vaccine (Mis?)information–Children’s Health Defense v. Facebook
…more about Congressional jawboning, see this February post. The court summarizes: “CHD has failed to allege specific facts showing that Zuckerberg, or indeed anyone at Facebook, jointly acted with the…
Another Must-Carry Lawsuit Against YouTube Fails–Daniels v Alphabet
…Internet services to censor, but their garden-variety jawboning doesn’t convert the Internet services into state actors. Section 230. The court says the defense admitted that Section 230(c)(1) wouldn’t preempt a…
Congressional Jawboning of Internet Services Isn’t Actionable–AAPS v. Schiff
…jawboning is nowhere near as ominous or targeted. In this case, Rep. Schiff didn’t mention the plaintiffs directly, making the connection even more attenuated. That’s not to say jawboning is…
Section 230 Immunizes Twitter From Liability For ISIS’s Terrorist Activities–Fields v. Twitter
…under to the US government’s jawboning/exhortations/coercion to “voluntarily” take action to suppress terroristic content on their network. Such efforts won’t matter to future plaintiffs, but it does seem relevant to…