Showing archive for: “US Constitution”
The Law & Economics of the First Amendment: Curation, Targeted Advertising, and Access to Online Speech
We at the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) filed an amicus brief earlier this month to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the NetChoice v. Bonta case. It was an updated version of the brief we filed earlier this year before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. ... The Law & Economics of the First Amendment: Curation, Targeted Advertising, and Access to Online Speech
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
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?
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
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
March-Right-on-In Rights?
The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) published a request for information (RFI) in December 2023 on its “Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights.” It’s quite something, if not in a good way. March-In Rights Provide Very Limited Exceptions to Intellectual-Property Rights What are “march-in” rights? In brief, they ... March-Right-on-In Rights?
ICLE’s Amicus Briefs on the Future of Online Speech
Over the past few months, we at the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) have endeavored to bring the law & economics methodology to the forefront of several major public controversies surrounding online speech. To date, ICLE has engaged these issues by filing two amicus briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, and another in ... ICLE’s Amicus Briefs on the Future of Online Speech
ICLE Files Amicus in NetChoice Social-Media Regulation Cases
Through our excellent counsel at Yetter Coleman LLP, the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE ) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton cases. In it, we argue that the First Amendment’s protection of the “marketplace of ideas” requires allowing private actors—like social-media ... ICLE Files Amicus in NetChoice Social-Media Regulation Cases
