VIEW THIS EMAIL IN BROWSER

SPOTLIGHT

Photo credit: ARTICLE 19

A win for free expression in the US Supreme Court

Last week, we welcomed the US Supreme Court decision in two cases that will have a major impact on free expression online, not just in the US, but across the globe.

The justices sent the challenges to state laws that restricted social media platforms’ ability to moderate content – Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton – back to the lower courts. But this was not an act of deflection or delay: the decision means the Court acknowledged that, when it comes to speech online, nuance and careful consideration are key.

The 1 July ruling challenged controversial state laws in Texas and Florida that could have allowed political influence to dictate how social media platforms moderate content. The Court acknowledged that platforms have First Amendment protections for their content moderation and curation decisions — meaning state governments cannot force platforms to host or prioritise certain content.

‘These decisions represent a crucial moment in the global conversation about freedom of expression online. They go to the heart of how states can regulate content moderation practices of major social media platforms. If upheld, the laws would have created an environment for state-controlled and politicised enforcement of content moderation online.’  

— Barbora Bukovská  (Senior Director for Law and Policy)

As legislators around the world continue to grapple with how to address the outsized power Big Tech holds, we continue to stress the importance of ensuring any regulation prioritises freedom of expression as a fundamental right in our digital age.

ALSO IN THE NEWS

Across the Atlantic, Big Tech gatekeepers continue to look for ways to avoid scrutiny under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). This week, we joined with 9 other civil society organisations and digital services groups to draw attention to Apple’s poor compliance with the DMA, the European Union’s new regulatory framework for digital markets.

While maintaining an appearance of following the rules on fair competition, in practice Apple is doing everything it can to maintain exclusive control over all our apps on iPhones and iPads — a blatant breach of its obligations that takes away people’s freedom to choose what they keep on their devices.  

Our coalition outlined Apple’s failure to comply in a detailed submission to the European Commision. The Commission has already indicated that it shares many of our concerns about Apple’s conduct – so we hope it acts swiftly to ensure that Apple does not get away with its attempts to selectively interpret the DMA to fit its agenda.  

We will continue to advocate for a resolute and swift enforcement of the DMA and to highlight the key role the regulation can play in protecting freedom of choice and other fundamental rights in the European Union.  

Call for papers: Digital Markets Act

Since March, gatekeepers designated by the European Commission under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) have been called to comply with the obligations under this new regulatory framework. Both business users and end users should be able to see and profit from tangible change in gatekeepers’ practices. But how is DMA enforcement working? Is the regulatory dialogue leading to good results? What are the main procedural challenges?  

ARTICLE 19, along with the Amsterdam Centre for European Governance, the Hertie School Centre for Digital Governance, and the University of Trento, have launched a call for abstracts to support independent research on trends and gaps in the first year of DMA enforcement.

Submit your abstract by 30 July.