Showing archive for: “First Amendment”
Age-Verification Mandates: Constitutional Concerns and Policy Pitfalls
In a recent post, my International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) colleague Ben Sperry explored the First Amendment implications of Rep. John James’ (R-Mich.) proposal to mandate app stores either verify users’ ages and or obtain parental consent for users who are minors. While that analysis provided a solid foundation for understanding the constitutional ... Age-Verification Mandates: Constitutional Concerns and Policy Pitfalls
The Law & Economics of Online Age Verification and Parental Consent: App Store Edition
Roughly this time last year, I was writing an International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) issue brief that considered online age-verification and parental-consent laws from a law & economics perspective. The resulting paper, “A Coasean Analysis of Online Age-Verification and Parental-Consent Regimes,” found that the major U.S. Supreme Court cases on age verification and ... The Law & Economics of Online Age Verification and Parental Consent: App Store Edition
Between a TikTok and a Hard Place: Products Liability, Section 230, and the First Amendment
With the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Anderson v. TikTok, it’s time to revisit the interplay between the First Amendment’s right to editorial discretion, Section 230 immunity, and children’s online safety in the context of algorithms. As has been noted many times, the use of algorithmic recommendations is ubiquitous online. And ... Between a TikTok and a Hard Place: Products Liability, Section 230, and the First Amendment
Does NetChoice v Bonta Mean Curtains for KOSA?
To butcher a Winston Churchill quote, it’s not yet clear if this is the beginning of the end, or just the end of the beginning, for children’s online-safety bills. Such legislation has been all the rage in recent years, earning bipartisan support at both the federal and state level. A version of the Kids Online ... Does NetChoice v Bonta Mean Curtains for KOSA?
No Kids Allowed: KOSA/COPPA 2.0 Will Encourage the Exclusion of Minors Online
An important lesson of economics is that policies intended to help a targeted group of people often end up harming them in unintended ways. For instance, economists have long argued that policies like rent control and minimum-wage laws actually tend to lead to shortages in housing and jobs, respectively. Similarly, despite having the stated intention ... No Kids Allowed: KOSA/COPPA 2.0 Will Encourage the Exclusion of Minors Online
What Do the NetChoice Cases Mean for Online Speech?
With the release of the U.S. Supreme Court’s NetChoice opinion (along with some other boring case people seem to want to talk about), opinions for the October 2023 term appear to be complete. After discussing what Murthy v. Missouri means for online speech, it only feels right to discuss the other big social-media case of ... What Do the NetChoice Cases Mean for Online Speech?
What Does Murthy v Missouri Mean for Online Speech?
After a lot of anticipation from Supreme Court watchers, the Murthy v. Missouri opinion has finally been released. As the oral argument suggested, standing was the issue for the Court, who in a 6-3 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett ruled that none of the plaintiffs had standing, due to a lack of traceability ... What Does Murthy v Missouri Mean for Online Speech?
Vullo and the Dangers of Government Coercion Over Speech
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major victory for free speech and struck a blow against government censorship-by-proxy yesterday in NRA v. Vullo: “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.” This is a major decision, and will have implications for free speech online, ... Vullo and the Dangers of Government Coercion Over Speech
Net Neutrality and the Paradox of Private Censorship
With yet another net-neutrality order set to take effect (the link is to the draft version circulated before today’s Federal Communications Commission vote; the final version is expected to be published in a few weeks) and to impose common-carriage requirements on broadband internet-access service (BIAS) providers, it is worth considering how the question of whether ... Net Neutrality and the Paradox of Private Censorship
Murthy Oral Arguments: Standing, Coercion, and the Difficulty of Stopping Backdoor Government Censorship
With Monday’s oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, we now have more of a feel for how the U.S. Supreme Court appears to be considering the issues of social-media censorship—in this case, done allegedly at the behest of federal officials. In the International Center for Law & Economics’ (ICLE) amicus brief in the case, we ... Murthy Oral Arguments: Standing, Coercion, and the Difficulty of Stopping Backdoor Government Censorship
NetChoice, the Supreme Court, and the State Action Doctrine
George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is frequently invoked when political actors use language to obfuscate what they are doing. Ambiguity in language can allow both sides to appeal to the same words, like “the First Amendment” or “freedom of speech.” In a sense, the arguments over online speech currently before the U.S. Supreme Court really amount ... NetChoice, the Supreme Court, and the State Action Doctrine
The FTC Should Not Enact a Deceptive or Unfair Marketing Earnings-Claims Rule
Back in February 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on “deceptive or unfair earnings claims.” According to the FTC: [The Deceptive or Unfair ANPRM was aimed at] challenging bogus money-making claims used to lure consumers, workers, and prospective entrepreneurs into risky business ventures that often turn into ... The FTC Should Not Enact a Deceptive or Unfair Marketing Earnings-Claims Rule
