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 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 ...
Given the apparently conflicting provisions of the 1934 Act that were raised in the circuit court ruling, the FCC appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court accepted the case in 1978 and resolved to reconcile the Act's restrictions on indecent broadcasting content with its prohibition of censorship. [1]
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 ...
The case was an appeal to the Supreme Court by film distributor Joseph Burstyn after the state of New York rescinded the license to exhibit the short film "The Miracle," originally made as a segment of the Italian film L'Amore. Burstyn was the distributor of the subtitled English versions of the film in the U.S.
The Supreme Court cast doubt Monday on state laws that could affect how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content posted by their users. The cases are among ...
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 ...
Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld regulations of the Federal Communications Commission that ban "fleeting expletives" on television broadcasts, finding they were not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. [1]