First Amendment Commons^™

Disinformation And The First Amendment: Fraud On The Public, Wes Henricksen

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Following the 2020 presidential election, the losing candidate, Donald Trump, along with most of the Republican Party, spread the false claim that the election had been stolen by Democrats. Joe Biden, so the claim went, had not been legitimately elected, and was therefore an illegitimate President and needed to be removed. This profitable falsehood6 became known as the “Big Lie.” It was not only baseless, but it was in fact made in spite of and in direct conflict with the overwhelming evidence debunking it. This did not stop people from believing it. Millions bought into the Big Lie, which …

Texas’ War On Social Media: Censorship Or False Flag, Leni Morales

DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Silencing Students: How Courts Have Failed To Protect Professional Students’ First Amendment Speech Rights, Shanelle Doher

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Over the past two decades, social media has dramatically changed the way people communicate. With the increased popularity of virtual communication, online speech has, in many ways, blurred the boundaries for where and when speech begins and ends. The distinction between on campus and off campus student speech has become particularly murky given the normalization of virtual learning environments as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court clarified that students retain their First Amendment rights on campus but that schools may sanction speech that materially and substantially …

Freedom Of Algorithmic Expression, Inyoung Cheong

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Can content moderation on social media be considered a form of speech? If so, would government regulation of content moderation violate the First Amendment? These are the main arguments of social media companies after Florida and Texas legislators attempted to restrict social media platforms’ authority to de-platform objectionable content.

This article examines whether social media companies’ arguments have valid legal grounds. To this end, the article proposes three elements to determine that algorithms classify as “speech:” (1) the algorithms are designed to communicate messages; (2) the relevant messages reflect cognitive or emotive ideas beyond mere operational matters; and (3) they …

Defamation 2.0, Cortelyou C. Kenney

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

There is a literal prohibition in the media bar that media lawyers cannot represent plaintiffs in suits for defamation. The stated principle behind this rule—a rule that can result in excommunication from the premier media law organization if it is violated—is that playing both sides of the defamation game is disloyal to traditional media actors because any chance of victory could inadvertently distort the law of defamation to increase the risk of frivolous suits against media outlets or other innocent third parties. But has the maxim finally gone too far?

Fueled by a new model where media profits are driven …

Comrades Or Foes: Did The Chinese Break The Law Or New Ground Ground For The First Amendment, Artem M. Joukov

West Virginia Law Review

Prior to exiting the White House, President Trump placed a variety of restrictions on Chinese-owned social media applications, TikTok and WeChat, threatening to greatly curtail their influence in the United States. While couching his actions in the context of national security, the former president engaged in viewpoint discrimination in plain violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court rulings in favor of TikTok and WeChat were encouraging and should stem the tide of future government regulations of social media platforms. This article discusses how the decisions fit into the greater context of First Amendment jurisprudence and …

Public Health Law’S Digital Frontier: Addictive Design, Section 230, And The Freedom Of Speech, Matthew B. Lawrence

Faculty Articles

This Article argues that, even if courts are unpersuaded by the broadest arguments in favor of a public health approach to regulation of addictive design, they should nonetheless reject the platforms’ efforts to make addictive design a public-health-law-free zone. The public health and internet paradigms can be reconciled as a policy matter because addictive design threatens both public health and innovation online. The public health and internet paradigms can also be reconciled as a legal matter be-cause even strong theories of section 230 and the First Amendment, properly understood, leave states a safe harbor in which to regulate much addictive …

Campbell V. Reisch: The Dangers Of The Campaign Loophole In Social Media Blocking Litigation, Clare R. Norins, Mark Bailey

Scholarly Works

Since 2016, social media blocking by government officials has been a lively battleground for First Amendment rights of free speech and petition. Government officials increasingly rely on social media to communicate with the public while ever greater numbers of private individuals are voicing their opinions and petitioning for change on government officials' interactive social media accounts. Perhaps not surprisingly, this has prompted many government officials to block those users whose comments they deem to be critical or offensive. But such speech regulation by a government actor introduces viewpoint discrimination—a cardinal sin under the First Amendment.

In 2019, three United States …

Incitement And Social Media-Algorithmic Speech: Redefining Brandenburg For A Different Kind Of Speech, Anna Rhoads

William & Mary Law Review

Assuming that these scholars are correct and that social media algorithms’ decisions qualify as speech to which the First Amendment applies (social media-algorithmic speech), this Note proposes a legal solution to the increasing problem of violence stemming from social media. This Note asserts that the incitement standard for social media-algorithmic speech should be less stringent because the Brandenburg standard does not apply well to new media, social media-algorithmic speech is much more likely than other speech to actually produce lawless action, and the traditional First Amendment justifications do not apply to social media algorithms’ speech. Therefore, the Supreme Court should …

Countering Personalized Speech, Leon G. Ho

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

Social media platforms use personalization algorithms to make content curation decisions for each end user. These personalized recommendation decisions are essentially speech conveying a platform's predictions on content relevance for each end user. Yet, they are causing some of the worst problems on the internet. First, they facilitate the precipitous spread of mis- and disinformation by exploiting the very same biases and insecurities that drive end user engagement with such content. Second, they exacerbate social media addiction and related mental health harms by leveraging users' affective needs to drive engagement to greater and greater heights. Lastly, they erode end user …

The First Amendment And The Regulation Of Speech Intermediaries, Shaun B. Spencer

Marquette Law Review

Calls to regulate social media platforms abound on both sides of the political spectrum. Some want to prevent platforms from deplatforming users or moderating content, while others want them to deplatform more users and moderate more content. Both types of regulation will draw First Amendment challenges. As Justices Thomas and Alito have observed, applying settled First Amendment doctrine to emerging regulation of social media platforms presents significant analytical challenges.

Anti-Speech Acts And The First Amendment, Richard K. Sherwin

Articles & Chapters

In many states today, there are laws on the books designed to protect the legitimacy and fairness of elections by barring the knowing or reckless dissemination of demonstrably false statements. Regulating this kind of deliberate deception protects the public against the erosion of First Amendment freedoms – such as the freedom to think and express one’s own thoughts and to meaningfully deliberate in an electoral process free from deliberate efforts to flood the zone of public discourse with confusion and mistrust based on deliberate and provable falsehoods. Some of these regulations, however, have been successfully challenged on First Amendment grounds. …

The President’S Remedy–What The Hydroxychloroquine Story Teaches Us About The Need To Limit Off-Lable Prescribing Powers, Jennifer Bard

Catholic University Law Review

When the history of the first year of the United States Government’s response to the COVID-19 virus is written, there is likely to be mention of the still unexplained vehemence with which then president Donald J. Trump made use of his access to social media to promote seldom used anti-malaria drug, hydroxychloroquine, for both the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 despite the active growing opposition of most of the world’s scientists, including his own government scientists. While the use of drugs developed and approved by the FDA for different purposes to combat new diseases, off-label prescribing, is legal in the …

Which Police Departments Make Black Lives Matter, Which Don’T, And Why Don’T Most Social Scientists Care?, Robert Anthony Maranto, Wilfred Reilly, Patrick Wolf, Mattie Harris

Education Reform Faculty and Graduate Students Publications

In part via skillful use of social media, Black Lives Matter (BLM) has become among the most influential social movements of the past half century, with support across racial lines, and considerable financial backing (Fisher, 2019). Will this translate into public policy reforms which save Black lives? After all, higher education is a key institutional backer of BLM, and a considerable literature dating back decades (e.g., Lindblom & Cohen, 1979) casts doubt on the effectiveness of social science in solving social problems, for numerous reasons. Often, the best social science is simple counting. This paper makes two unique contributions. First, …

Outside Tinker’S Reach: An Examination Of Mahanoy Area School District V. B. L. And Its Implications, Michelle Hunt

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

In the 1969 landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court reassured students that they do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Ever since then, the exact scope of students’ free speech rights has been unclear, but the high court has used Tinker’s substantial disruption test to clarify its scope in successive legal challenges. In 2017, B. L., a Mahanoy Area School District student, was suspended from her cheerleading team after using vulgar language off-campus that made its way back to her coaches. She …

Tinkering With The Schoolhouse Gate: The Future Of Student Speech After Mahanoy Area School District V. B.L., Victoria R. Bonds

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

When the Supreme Court last created a rule about students’ First Amendment rights, MySpace was the most popular social media platform. Students’ use of social media and technology has radically changed since then, and it is time the First Amendment case law reflects that. With the transition to online learning after the COVID-19 pandemic and overall increased reliance on technology, students need clear answers about when school officials can punish them for their social media posts.

The Supreme Court had a chance to clarify First Amendment student speech law this year in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., but …

Tinkering With Tinker: Why The Supreme Court Must Protect Student Speech Through Social Media, Alexis Roach

Honors Theses and Capstones

The goal of this paper is to address the failing of the Supreme Court in their decision of the case Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.[1]. While the Court defended students’ rights to free speech under the First Amendment in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)[2], they have since restricted that right through a number of cases. While the Court’s decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. protected student speech, the Court failed to provide a standard for application in cases regarding social media in schools. This paper argues that while the Court was correct in …

Platforms As Blackacres, Thomas E. Kadri

Scholarly Works

While writing this Article, I interviewed a journalist who writes stories about harmful technologies. To do this work, he gathers information from websites to reveal trends that online platforms would prefer to hide. His team has exposed how Facebook threatens people’s privacy and safety, how Amazon hides cheaper deals from consumers, and how Google diverts political speech from our inboxes. You’d think the journalist might want credit for telling these important stories, but he instead insisted on anonymity when we talked because his lawyer was worried he’d be confessing to breaking the law—to committing the crime and tort of cyber-trespass. …

Speech Regulation By Algorithm, Enrique Armijo

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The rapid convergence of speech and technology on social media platforms means it is likely the case that, either now or soon, more expressive activity will be regulated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) than by any legislature, regulator, or other government entity. Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly told Congress and other audiences that AI is the key to resolving Facebook's content moderation challenges, envisioning a moderation regime where algorithms detect and take down speech infringing Facebook's Community Standards ex ante, that is, prior to its public posting and before it reaches other users. According to Zuckerberg, this would eventually replace its initial …

Free Speech Has Gotten Very Expensive: Rethinking Political Speech Regulation In A Post-Truth World, John A. Barrett, Jr.

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Protecting free speech has been a foundational principle of American democracy since the nation’s founding. A core element of free speech has long been a prohibition on regulating political speech. The principle behind this protection holds that citizens are free to make whatever political pronouncements they wish and that their speech shall remain free from government suppression. Even within the limited exceptions to unfettered political speech, like defamation or libel, the speech is not banned but may merely result in liability. A premise underlying this view is that competing viewpoints, by being made available to us all, will allow …

Taking Exception To Assessments Of American Exceptionalism: Why The United States Isn’T Such An Outlier On Free Speech, Evelyn Mary Aswad

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

One of the most significant challenges to human freedom in the digital age involves the sheer power of private companies over speech and the fact that power is untethered to existing free speech principles. Heated debates are ongoing about what standards social media companies should adopt to regulate speech on their platforms. Some have argued that global social media companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, should align their speech codes with the international human rights law standards of the United Nations (“U.N.”). Others have countered that U.S.-based companies should apply First Amendment standards. Much of this debate is premised on …

The New Editors: Refining First Amendment Protections For Internet Platforms, Mailyn Fidler

Notre Dame Journal on Emerging Technologies

This Article envisions what it would look like to tailor the First Amendment editorial privilege to the multifaceted nature of the internet, just as courts have done with media in the offline world. It reviews the law of editorial judgment offline, where protections for editorial judgment are strong but not absolute, and its nascent application online. It then analyzes whether the diversity of internet platforms and their functions alter how the Constitution should be applied in this new setting. First Amendment editorial privilege, as applied to internet platforms, is often treated by courts and platforms themselves as monolithic and equally …

How Should We Regulate The Internet? A Proposal, Natalie Petruzelli

The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research

With the invention of the internet providing newfangled methods of spreading information around the world, misinformation has also found home in these pathways, disrupting the general public’s ability to discern fact from fiction and creating divides in society. Regulation must be enacted to stop the effects of misinformation, but the efforts of technology companies and the general public have been insufficient thus far. Regulatory control of the internet and its content should be the responsibility of the government, based on their constitutional right to intervene under certain circumstances and the fact that previous efforts by other parties to mitigate misinformation …

Deplatformed: Social Network Censorship, The First Amendment, And The Argument To Amend Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act, John A. Lonigro

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taking Exception To Assessments Of American Exceptionalism: Why The United States Isn't Such An Outlier On Free Speech, Evelyn Aswad

Faculty Articles

One of the most significant challenges to human freedom in the digital age involves the sheer power of private companies over speech and the fact that power is untethered to existing free speech principles. Heated debates are ongoing about what standards social media companies should adopt to regulate speech on their platforms. Some have argued that global social media companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, should align their speech codes with the international human rights law standards of the United Nations (“U.N.”). Others have countered that U.S.-based companies should apply First Amendment standards. Much of this debate is premised on …

Technological Transformation Of The Public Square: Government Officials Use Of Social Media And The First Amendment, Patricia Beety, Joline Zepcevski

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

No Ifs, Ands, Or Juuls About It: Why Influencers Must Be Held Accountable, Krystina Dorta

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

This article analyzes how the FTC’s Endorsement Guide regulating the advertising of e-cigarette products should be applied to social media influencers. The struggle to regulate e-cigarettes by the FDA and the FTC has led to different advertising methods, which either comply with or neglect the FTC’s Endorsement Guide. This article evaluates the federal government’s reaction to the e-cigarette health crisis, followed by a review of the FTC’s previous actions addressing Endorsement Guide violations, along with the consequences on other companies’ marketing strategies. Finally, this article reviews influencer liability standards for Endorsement Guide violations and develops recommendations to improve those standards.

FacebookʼS Latest Attempt To Address Vaccine Misinformation — And Why ItʼS Not Enough, Ana Santos Rutschman

All Faculty Scholarship

On October 13, 2020 Facebook announced the adoption of a series of measures to promote vaccine trust “while prohibiting ads with misinformation that could harm public health efforts.” In the post written by Kang-Xing Jin (head of health) and Rob Leathern (director of product management), the company explained that the new measures were designed with an emphasis on encouraging widespread use of this yearʼs flu vaccine, as well as in anticipation of potential COVID-19 vaccines becoming available in the near future.

The changes focus mainly on the establishment of a multiprong informational campaign about the seasonal flu vaccine, which includes …

In A World Of “Fake News,” What’S A Social Media Platform To Do?, Evelyn Mary Aswad

Utah Law Review

While the circulation of disinformation and misinformation online can pose a variety of risks to societies around the world, it should also be of concern that overreacting to such false information can undermine human rights, including freedom of expression. The business operations of global social media platforms frequently intersect with this latter concern because of a spike in the adoption of national laws that ban “fake news” as well as their own platform policies to tackle false information. This Essay assesses the corporate responsibility standards afforded by the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights as well as …

Extrajudicial Statements And Prejudice In The Digital Age: Creating Factors To Preserve The Balance Between Attorney And State Interests In Trial Litigation, Emily R. O'Hara

William & Mary Law Review

As social media’s prevalence and usage grows within the United States, people and organizations capitalize on new media to send news to users. In 2017, 67 percent of people consumed their news from social media websites, and the rate continues to grow. Local and national news sources bring newsworthy stories to active users on social media sites such as Twitter, where users can communicate and interact with one another to promote ideas and spread information. These online accounts cover not only mundane, day-to-day news, but also salacious stories relating to civil and criminal lawsuits.

In April 2018, attorney Neal Katyal …