Supreme Court to scrutinize U.S. protections for social media

Texas’s law that restricts social media platforms’ ability to remove users or violative content was temporarily blocked by the supreme court on tuesday, but it’s not the end of the road for the case that may wind up back before the justices. The ongoing challenge to the texas law, and to a similar measure in florida, is providing a test for how first amendment protections should be applied in the internet age. Here are five things to know about the law and the supreme court’s 5-4 ruling. How could the law keep companies from moderating content? texas’s law, hb 20, forbids social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users from banning texas-based users over their political views.

The supreme court has announced it will take up a pair of cases that consider how far protections that shield websites and social media companies from legal liability over what user s post to their platforms should go, reports mike bebernes for yahoo news. Under dispute is the authority of the communications decency act of 1996, known as section 230, which established that companies operating websites or social media platforms could not be held legally responsible if their users post content that breaks the law and granted them the right to curate, edit and delete user content as they see fit.

By david ingram what if youtube stopped making recommendations? what if a state official in texas or florida required instagram to not remove vaccine misinformation that’s against the app’s rules? or what if tiktok remade its “for you” tab so that content moderators needed to ok videos before letting them appear? the supreme court this week opened the door to radically different ways of thinking about social media and the internet. The court is poised to hear as many as three cases this term about the legal protections that social media companies have used to become industry behemoths, and about the freewheeling latitude the companies now have over online speech, entertainment and information.

Social Media and Court: How It Can Affect Your Case

A federal appeals court has reinstated a free speech lawsuit brought on behalf of a colorado high school student who was expelled after posting a joking reference to exterminating jews in his snapchat messages. The appeals court said the u. S. Supreme court’s decision last year, in a case involving a cheerleader’s vulgar messages on social media, that schools may not, in most circumstances, discipline off-campus student speech led to the conclusion that the colorado student’s snapchat message was likely protected under the first amendment. The three-judge panel of the u. S. Court of appeals for the 10th circuit, in denver, unanimously reinstated the suit, though it also held in its july 6 decision in c1.

*what you post on social media can be used against you in court in both civil and criminal trials. Social media has brought about many changes in the way individuals communicate. Much of what we say is now put into writing. Unlike a hand-written statement, which can be shredded or lost, everything said on the internet is permanent. In the past few years, courts have seen a steady increase in the amount of cases in which online statements are used as evidence. In a criminal trial, the state can use evidence found on social media to prove charges against the defendant.

Updated: share more and more people are broadcasting their lives on social media these days, sharing posts publicly. The impact of those posts are seen more and more in the courtroom as well. Are those posts affecting the outcome of any cases? we’re taking a look at the role social media may play in court cases. Photos and posts on social media may seem like a private or personal part of one’s life. Almost every aspect of a person’s online profile can be used in a court of law. “social media is often real-time evidence of what a person is thinking, feeling, where they are and what they’re doing.

Social Media is Admissible in Court

Tallahassee — florida and major social media companies could be poised for a showdown at the u. S. Supreme court. Lawyers for the state wednesday filed a petition asking the supreme court to take up a first amendment battle about a 2021 florida law that placed restrictions on industry giants such as facebook and twitter. The state wants justices to overturn a may decision by the 11th u. S. Circuit court of appeals that blocked key parts of the law on first amendment grounds. The appeals court upheld much of a preliminary injunction issued by u. S. District judge robert hinkle, who described the law as “riddled with imprecision and ambiguity.

Sep 1, 2022, 09:22 am ag schmitt jefferson city, mo. – yesterday, missouri attorney general eric schmitt and louisiana attorney general jeff landry filed a joint statement on discovery disputes, asking the louisiana district court to compel the department of justice to turn over communications between high-ranking biden administration officials from the white house, department of state, fbi and others and major social media companies. The department of justice has already turned over communications between a number of federal officials and social media companies but has refused to provide communications between top-ranking officials and social media companies. “missouri and louisiana filed a landmark lawsuit back in may that seeks to expose how top biden administration officials allegedly colluded with social media companies to censor freedom of speech on a number of topics, including covid-19.

This dissertation examines the applicability of current rules of the law of evidence to social media evidence. It argues that the current law of evidence should be sufficient to render social media evidence admissible in south african courts of law, although it may be necessary to re-interpret certain requirements with reference to the electronic nature of social media evidence. It further argues that a strict application of the originality rule should not be followed, but that more emphasis should be laid on authenticating social media evidence. It also evaluates recent changes in legislation with specific reference to the electronic communications and transactions act 25 of 2002 and its applicability to social media evidence.

Ask any 1l – personal jurisdiction has always been a tricky issue. But in the internet era, even courts have grappled with how to determine whether an online presence is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over a party. Recently, the eastern district of louisiana ruled that an internet presence consisting of a website as well as facebook, twitter, youtube, and linkedin pages could not sufficiently demonstrate the “foreseeability or awareness” that a product would reach a forum state’s market required to establish personal jurisdiction. The decision reaffirmed that even in the age of social media, defendants must still directly target a forum to be subject to personal jurisdiction there.

How Can We Help You?

Partner at wick, phillips, gould & martin, llp spring 2021 issue: constitutional law infographic the public seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the true extent of  “freedom of speech” under the first amendment. Who can or cannot restrict free speech? what type of speech can be restricted? and how does this apply to speech restrictions on social media platforms which have become so prevalent? lawsuits alleging free speech violations against social media companies are routinely dismissed. The primary grounds for these dismissals are that social media companies are not state actors and their platforms are not public forums, and therefore they are not subject to the free speech protections of the first amendment.

What is social media evidence?

Federal and local authorities increasingly monitor social media, even though there is scant evidence that surveillance is useful in identifying security threats. Under a new rule, which stems from president trump’s muslim ban, the nearly 15 million people who apply for visas each year must turn over their social media handles to the u. S. Government. Posts, comments, and tweets can be kept in government databases for up to 100 years. Local police departments also use social media as a surveillance tool, including to monitor activists from movements like black lives matter and the protestors at standing rock. School districts, too, are turning to monitoring services as they grapple with how to prevent school shootings and cyberbullying.