Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Biden) was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving the First Amendment, the federal government, and social media. The states of Missouri and Louisiana, led by Missouri's then Attorney General Eric Schmitt, filed suit against the U.S. government in the Western District of Louisiana.
The Supreme Court on Monday appeared deeply skeptical of arguments by two conservative states that the First Amendment bars the government from pressuring social media platforms to remove online ...
Cases that consider the First Amendment implications of payments mandated by the state going to use in part for speech by third parties Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) Communications Workers of America v. Beck (1978) Chicago Local Teachers Union v. Hudson (1986) Keller v. State Bar of California (1990) Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n ...
The Supreme Court will hear another social media censorship case in 2024, this one originally filed by Louisiana's Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri’s Attorney General (now Senator) Eric ...
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v.Paxton, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), were United States Supreme Court cases related to protected speech under the First Amendment and content moderation by interactive service providers on the Internet under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday is hearing arguments on whether laws proposed by Texas and Florida to ban social media companies from removing content are constitutional. Here's everything you ...
Garnier, 601 U.S. 205 (2024), were a pair of United States Supreme Court cases regarding the First Amendment. Both cases were filed by individuals who were blocked from a public official's personal social media account where the official sometimes spoke about official government business. The blocked individuals asserted that their blocks ...
The Supreme Court may find that when social media platforms restrict, fact-check, take down or leave up content, this is constitutionally protected speech and the government cannot interfere, ...