Technofascism is the modern-day equivalent of book burning.

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
[link removed]



** For Immediate Release: August 16, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------


** Can Social Media Companies Be Regulated to Prevent Censorship? Supreme Court Avoids Deciding for Now
------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a unanimous decision ([link removed]) in the combined cases of NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, the U.S. Supreme Court sent each case back to the lower courts for further proceedings without ruling on the merits of the First Amendment claims ([link removed]) . The cases arose in response to laws passed by Texas and Florida to prohibit censorship by Big Tech companies on social media platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube.

The Rutherford Institute had filed an amicus brief ([link removed]) in support of the state laws treating social media platforms as open free speech forums to protect users from viewpoint-based censorship by Big Tech companies which block, ban, and remove speech they disapprove of. Institute attorneys argued ([link removed]) that social media platforms are nothing like newspaper publishers or editors, and that the acts of blocking and removing the disfavored views of others which are posted on an open platform do not constitute speech by a Big Tech company, which can otherwise express its own views. Similarly, Justice Alito’s concurrence questioned “NetChoice’s unsupported assertion that social-media platforms—which use secret algorithms
to review and moderate an almost unimaginable quantity of data today—are just as expressive as the newspaper editors who marked up typescripts in blue pencil 50 years ago.”

“Technofascism is the modern-day equivalent of book burning, which does away with controversial ideas and the people who espouse them,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People ([link removed]) . “Once you allow government agencies and corporations to determine what viewpoints are ‘legitimate,’ you’re already moving fast down a slippery slope that ends with the censorship of all viewpoints other than that of Big Brother.”
MAKE THE GOVERNMENT PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTION: SUPPORT THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ([link removed])

In response to increasing concerns about viewpoint-based censorship by social media companies, Texas and Florida each passed laws to prohibit such content moderation. The Texas law forbids censorship by social media platforms with more than 50 million active monthly users, like Facebook and YouTube, but the law does not prohibit removal of unlawful expression, such as that involving the sexual exploitation of children and threats of violence. The Florida law likewise applies to larger social media platforms, but it only prohibits censorship relating to candidates for office and larger “journalistic enterprises.” Both laws treat the platforms as common carriers, similar to public utilities.

NetChoice and another trade association, which represent major social media companies, filed suits challenging the laws. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found Florida’s law to be unconstitutional, reasoning that the content-moderation decisions of social media companies is a protected exercise of editorial discretion. However, the Fifth Circuit found the Texas law to be constitutional, rejecting “the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.” The Fifth Circuit warned that providing corporations with an “unenumerated right to muzzle speech” could pave the way for “email providers, mobile phone companies, and banks [to] cancel the accounts of anyone who…support[s]…a disfavored political party.” In its amicus brief ([link removed]) , The Rutherford Institute called on the U.S. Supreme Court to protect Americans’ lawful speech ([link removed]
/on_the_front_lines/rutherford_institute_calls_on_supreme_court_to_uphold_laws_prohibiting_censorship_by_tech_companies_protecting_free_speech_on_social_media) in the modern public forum of social media. The lawsuits will now continue to proceed in the lower courts and could come back on appeal.

Attorney Jared Harpt assisted with advancing the arguments in the NetChoice brief ([link removed]) . The amicus brief ([link removed]) and Supreme Court opinion ([link removed]) in the NetChoice cases are available at www.rutherford.org ([link removed]) .

The Rutherford Institute ([link removed]) , a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

Source: [link removed]
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fcan-social-media-companies-be-regulated-to-prevent-censorship Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fcan-social-media-companies-be-regulated-to-prevent-censorship)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
CLICK HERE TO MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION ([link removed])

To donate via PayPal, please click below:
[link removed]

============================================================
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
CONTACT INFORMATION
Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
** [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Post Office Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
Phone: (434) 978-3888
** www.rutherford.org ([link removed])

Copyright © 2024 The Rutherford Institute, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because of your interest in the work of The Rutherford Institute. Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. To discontinue your membership electronically, or if you feel you are receiving this message in error, please follow the link below.

Under the regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service, The Rutherford Institute is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit organization. Donations to support The Rutherford Institute’s legal and educational work help to safeguard the constitutional rights of all Americans. Donations are tax-deductible. In compliance with general industry standards of a nonprofit organization, the Institute is audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])

** update subscription preferences ([link removed])