Legally penalizing the circulation of “fake news,” misinformation and faulty rumor, newly popular in Europe especially as regards social media, is not a new idea at all. It’s a very old one, which again and again results in governments’ enshrining their particular version of orthodoxy as truth [Jacob Mchangama, Quillette]
Posts Tagged ‘social media’
Must officials keep religion out of their social media feeds?
The Freedom from Religion Foundation claims that it’s unconstitutional for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio to tweet Bible verses, as he often does [complaint letter] The question of when officials’ social media feeds should be deemed governmental in nature as distinct from personal sidelines, and what exactly that should mean in practice, has been much in the news, especially since a federal court ruled that a county supervisor in Virginia acted improperly by banning some constituents from her Facebook page. Critics have similarly sued on the theory that President Trump’s @realdonaldtrump Twitter account is a government forum that may not block viewers based on the viewpoint of their likely responses. Eugene Volokh sorts out some of the issues and notes that the Supreme Court, including some of the most liberal members, have taken the view that elected officials are free to voice religious convictions in public speeches without fear of violating the Establishment Clause. Earlier here and here.
August 23 roundup
- Crash-faking for insurance money, long a U.S. problem, happening in U.K. too [Legal Futures, Telegraph, compare]
- $5000 and an apology for a racist comment on AirBnB? Sounds good. Community service? Even better. A college course too? Why not? Plus more community service? Sure! [The Guardian, ABA Journal; settlement presided over by California state agency]
- Encyclopedia of Libertarianism now free online thanks to Cato Institute. My contribution was on Thomas Macaulay;
- Conservatives! Victory lies within reach! All you need to give up are your principles! [Jeremy Carl and Mark Krikorian, NRO, on idea of regulating social media and Internet providers as public utilities; more from Electronic Frontier Foundation on the new wave of electronic de-platforming; related yesterday on business ostracism]
- Per Judge Easterbrook, caption tells story of case: “The City of South Bend, Indiana, is suing one of its constituent parts.” [City of South Bend v. South Bend Common Council, Seventh Circuit]
- “Difficulty proving ‘criminal intent’ should be ‘a severe, even disabling, obstacle to prosecution.'” [Caleb Kruckenberg on this New Yorker piece deploring lack of more white-collar convictions]
Coral Gables sues to unmask critical social media accounts
Florida: “someone set up a handful of social media accounts criticizing the City of Coral Gables for its use of private security guards. … So in late May, deputy city attorney Miriam Ramos fired off two cease-and-desist letters and sent them to Silicon Valley, threatening to fine Facebook and Instagram $500 a day if they didn’t remove the posts, which Ramos said infringed on the city’s trademarks. Now, the city is suing Mark Zuckerberg’s multibillion-dollar businesses in an attempt to get the name, phone number, and address of whoever ‘cast the city in a false light.'” While cities can own trademarks, as in the slogans and logos used in marketing campaigns, courts are likely to accord broad recognition to fair use of those marks in discussions of civic affairs. Can cities sue over false light at all? [Jessica Lipscomb, Miami New Times; Lance Dixon/Miami Herald]
Social media liberty roundup
- “Congress is on the cusp of gutting Section 230. This is the threat we’ve always knew was coming” [Eric Goldman, R Street Institute/TechFreedom letter, Emma Llansó/CDT on SESTA, Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act]
- Psychiatrist sues to unmask author of 1-star review that caused him “extreme and constant distress” [Post and Courier]
- Judge: Loudoun County, Va. public official violated constituent’s rights by blocking him from “Chair Randall” Facebook page [Sydney Kashiwagi, Loudoun Times, Eugene Volokh, earlier on asserted First Amendment right not to be blocked or deleted on officials’ accounts]
- “Ominous: Canadian Court Orders Google To Remove Search Results Globally” [Daphne Keller/CIS via Volokh, EFF; decision defended by Neil Turkewitz, Truth on the Market]
- “Washington law bans repeated online posts intended to ‘embarrass’ anyone” [Eugene Volokh and second post on Rynearson/Moriwaki dispute]
- Blasphemy laws: Taimoor Raza becomes first person sentenced to death in Pakistan over Facebook posts [CNN]
Free speech roundup
- ACLU of Oregon has it right: even in near aftermath of violent Portland attack, government cannot revoke rally permits because of disapproval of the message being sent [Ronald K.L. Collins, Scott Shackford/Reason, John Samples/Cato]
- “The ‘eye for an eye’ theory of respecting free speech is particularly pernicious because it represents the worst sort of collectivism, something the principled Right ought reject.” [Ken White, Popehat] Courts have been doing a stellar job of upholding free speech. Other sectors of U.S. society, less so [same]
- tl:dr version: yes, legally it can. “Can Charlotte Pride parade exclude Gays for Trump float?” [Eugene Volokh]
- “California AG agrees: Calif. law does not preclude private citizens from displaying Confederate battle flag at county fairs” [Volokh, earlier]
- “Germany Raids Homes of 36 People Accused of Hateful Postings Over Social Media” [David Shimer, New York Times] Per David Meyer-Lindenberg, German police launched 234,341 investigations over insult or other hurtful speech last year [Scott Greenfield] A vigilant comrade has reported your tweet of Wednesday last to the constabulary as doubleplus ungood [Matt Burgess, Wired, last August on Met Police plans in U.K.]
- On inviting controversial speakers: “A response to Scott Alexander” [Flemming Rose, Cato]
“Lawsuit Claims Bank Is Responsible for Employee Sending Naked Photo on LinkedIn”
A lawsuit filed by celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos asserts that a bank is responsible for the actions of an executive whose message exchanges with the complainant allegedly turned from professional exchanges to sexual overtures, including the sending of a naked picture. [Bloomberg/Insurance Journal]
Libel insurance for non-journalists
The courtroom aftermath of social media slugfests is among factors helping drive wider interest in insurance against defamation-suit risks even by persons who do not write for a living [Polly Mosendz, Bloomberg]
Facebook prevails in another pair of abetting-terrorism suits
“A federal judge in Brooklyn, New York, has dismissed two lawsuits that claimed Facebook should be liable for allowing terrorists to use its platform to advance violence….The plaintiffs had claimed that Palestinian terrorism organizations used the social media platform to incite and organize attacks.” [Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal; Eugene Volokh (federal judge ruled “in my view quite correctly”)]
Free speech roundup
- “There are about 10 to 20 [criminal libel] prosecutions each year throughout the country” [Eugene Volokh on criminal defamation complaint by Montana judge against election opponent who had accused him of misconduct]
- “Shutting down Fake News Could Move Us Closer to a Modern-Day ‘1984’” [Flemming Rose and Jacob Mchangama, Washington Post/Cato]
- Glad to be in America with our First Amendment: EU acts to adopt Europe-wide rules requiring social media companies to take down so-called hate speech [Mashable, Engadget] More: DW. And a decree ordering media to take down news officially dubbed false is one that would *not* read better in the original German [Flemming Rose, Cato]
- Idaho defends its ag-gag law against First Amendment challenge before Ninth Circuit [Baylen Linnekin]
- “The playing field for independent speech has improved, but there are challenges still for small groups that want to influence elections.” [Cato podcast with campaign attorneys Michael G. Adams and Neil Reiff]
- On the origins of “no-platforming” [Mark Peters, Boston Globe, quotes me]