Federal Communications Law Journal - The Tech Journal’s Post

Sharenting and children’s rights to privacy France leading the way by introducing new law to enhance the protection of children online: The Children’s Image Rights Law aims to tackle risks of sharenting, including by completing measures implemented under the Child Influencers Law, to limit risk-creating behavior, and enshrines children’s right to privacy and facilitate the exercise of rights which protect minors. The Children’s Image Rights Law reminds parents that children have the right to privacy and the right to their image, as photos and videos are personal data. Their digital rights include a right of access, rectification, erasure, and a right to object in relation to their personal data that can be exercised on their own or by a legal representative. Parents or guardians can exercise their children’s rights on their behalf, in particular their right to deletion if photos or videos posted by them have been reused without consent. 👇🏻 See more here 👇🏻

Crikey. Although commercial expression is established in European human rights jurisprudence as one of the forms of protected expression (albeit limited) under Article 10 ECHR (see eg Société de conception de presse et d'édition et Ponson v. France - 26935/05), I somehow can’t see the Strasbourg Court following what seems to be a developing line in the US, to the effect that DPIAs under the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act may violate the First Amendment - e.g., from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, on a preliminary injunction matter: “…the DPIA report requirement clearly compels speech by requiring covered businesses to opine on potential harm to children…” Also “…the DPIA report requirement invites First Amendment scrutiny because it deputizes covered businesses into serving as censors for the State…” (Have you done this one Robert Bateman?) https://lnkd.in/ef-Q6raG

With the first month of the new year coming to a close, we are so excited to announce that the Federal Communications Law Journal - The Tech Journal has published Volume 76, Issue 2! Thank you to our members for their excellent work in producing this publication and the Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA - The Tech Bar) for their continued support of the Journal. The Issue includes the following Article and Notes: Article: Christopher Yoo and Alex Mueller, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Agenda? The Emergence of China in the Global Internet Standard-Setting Arena Notes: Angela Gasca, Amazon’s Acquisition of One Medical: The Lack of Health Data Regulation in the Age of Big Tech Benjamin (Ben) Soullier, Decriminalizing Trivial Computer Use: The Need to Narrow the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) After Van Buren Benjamin Duwve, From One Sector to Another: Applying a Proactive Framework to the FCC’s Network Resiliency Efforts Morgan Gray, MPA, Reclaiming the Airwaves: An Analysis of Claims to Wireless Spectrum by Tribal Nations Based on Treaty Obligations and the Federal Trust Responsibility ➡ https://lnkd.in/eztpNeN2

Very important ruling out of PA’s 3rd Circuit Court that is a huge blow to Big Tech’s ability to dodge responsibility for the harm their products are causing to children. Hat tip to Sam Chapman for alerting me as this ruling has not received anywhere close to the attention it deserves and flew under my radar. From Google’s summary: “The 3rd Circuit's ruling came in the case of Anderson v. TikTok, in which the mother of a 10-year-old girl who died attempting the "Blackout Challenge" sued TikTok. The girl's mother claimed that TikTok's algorithm recommended videos of the challenge to her daughter's For You Page. The court ruled that TikTok's algorithm is considered first-party speech because it curates and recommends videos, which is a form of "expressive product". Since Section 230 only protects third-party content, it does not apply to TikTok's own recommendations.” While I personally think of algorithms as a product design feature more than speech and am going to have to keep noodling the implications of it being considered speech, this is in effect a huge blow to Big Tech's ability to evade liability for the harms caused by their products/their product design. It has been infuriating to watch Big Tech claim they are merely neutral platforms that host others’ speech and use that as a liability shield when they select and push curated content (that is often harmful) on children. So I'm thrilled this ruling acknowledges their responsibility in these cases and rejects them crying “third-party speech” as a legal defense. Matt Stoller wrote a good, lengthy article on this for those who want more context and to get into the weeds a bit. Here I’ll just include a short quote underscoring how consequential this ruling is:   '“This is a really substantial and important decision,” wrote legal scholar Zephyr Teachout. I emailed a political contact who has worked in this space and has tangled with big tech for more than ten years to ask how important this decision is. His response? “HUGE.”'  https://lnkd.in/gBS3-5cs

I'm thrilled to share my first blog post for Freedom Technologies, Inc., which delves into the implications of the Loper Bright decision on the FCC and spectrum regulation with Yaegy Park! In our blog, we argue that while the Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision has sent shockwaves through administrative law circles, the FCC's spectrum authority remains relatively unscathed. Further, the Commission's power is firmly grounded in explicit statutory mandates and has been consistently upheld in recent court cases. Key takeaways: 1️⃣ The FCC's spectrum authority remains intact: Despite Loper Bright, the FCC's authority to manage spectrum is still grounded in clear statutory language. 2️⃣ Courts have consistently upheld the FCC's authority: Recent court cases involving the 5.9 and 6 GHz bands have reinforced the FCC's power to regulate spectrum. 3️⃣ Loper Bright may impact other FCC areas: While the FCC's spectrum authority is likely secure, the decision may lead to greater court challenges in other areas it regulates, including digital discrimination, net neutrality, and space. ➡ Interested? Read more here: https://lnkd.in/gBCEj2E5 #LoperBright #FCC #Spectrum #AdministrativeLaw

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently set a groundbreaking precedent with profound implications for both the legal and technological spheres. Their new test... 1) whether the official has authority to speak on the government's behalf, and 2) if they purported to use that authority in writing a post ... to determine when a public official's use of social media constitutes state action under the First Amendment introduces a pivotal change in how we perceive and regulate online speech. 🧠 Public officials must now be more cognizant of their online presence. When they speak within their official capacity, their statements could be subject to First Amendment constraints and liabilities. This brings a new layer of scrutiny to how government policies and opinions are communicated through social media. 👩💼 Social media platforms face a new challenge in distinguishing between a public official's personal opinions and official statements. This adds complexity to content moderation policies and practices, possibly requiring new technologies or strategies to contextualize posts. 🚫 This test could reshape the landscape of online free speech, particularly in the moderation of content by public figures. Platforms must now navigate the thin line between censorship and allowing potentially harmful or misleading content from officials who claim to speak in a personal capacity. ⚖ Lastly, this decision underscores the evolving role of technology in governance and public discourse. Social media, once seen as a casual platform for personal expression, now serves as a battleground for legal and constitutional debates. #LawAndTechnology #DigitalGovernance #FirstAmendment #SocialMediaLaw #ContentModeration

Do you want to learn how to defend internet freedom in today’s restrictive legal climate? Our latest course, "Analyzing Laws that Impact Digital Rights & Advocating for Reform" by International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) for civil society and digital rights advocates, shows you the impact of digital regulations on civic space and equips you with the tools to advocate for change. This course is free and self-paced! You do not need to have any law or tech background. #Digital_Rights #Human_rights 🔗 https://lnkd.in/emXpRVED

Common Cause/NY & New York Focus File Motion with NYS Supreme Court to Make Trump Trial Transcripts Public New York is one of the only state court systems that charge the media and public for courtroom transcripts, limiting public access to the daily account of trials NEW YORK, NY (04/19/2024) Common Cause/NY – a leading nonpartisan election and ethics reform group – and New York Focus, a nonprofit newsroom, filed a motion with the New York Supreme Court for the court to post the transcripts from the ongoing Trump trial on the Unified Court System (UCS)'s webpage at the end of the day, or 48 hours after so the Court can correctly redact. Right now, if a person or media company wants access to any court transcripts, they must purchase the transcripts from court personnel at a per page cost. They cannot share the transcripts publicly, and the media can not share copies with the public. "The longstanding issue of public access to court proceedings has been thrown into sharp relief by the Trump trial. The strength of our judicial system relies on the belief that everyone is equal under the law and that our courts operate fairly and impartially. During such a hotly contested and deeply polarized election season, and with public trust in democratic institutions at near-historic lows, the courts have an obligation to ensure the public knows the proceedings are fair and equal for everyone-including the former President. Since the State does not provide video or audio of the trial, it must make written transcripts of all proceedings available to the public at no cost," said Susan Lerner, Executive Director of Common Cause/NY. "New Yorkers have a right to know what happens in their courts. As a nonprofit local news publication, our reporting is routinely hindered by the extreme opacity of the courts - including the difficulty of accessing transcripts, which are critical not only to covering individual cases but also to watchdogging judges, attorneys, and the legal system at large. We urge New York courts to make transcripts freely and easily accessible in all public trials, starting with this one," said Akash Mehta, editor-in-chief of New York Focus. The motion, which was delivered to the judge in the criminal case, argues that the public is entitled to full court transcripts free of cost since the defendant, former president Trump, has sowed doubt in the public's perception of the media. Daily publication of the transcripts, in turn, would offer unbiased reporting from both left-wing and right-wing outlets. Read the full application attached. New York State is one of the only jurisdictions in the country that does not allow visual or audio coverage of court trials. During the pandemic, New York courts allowed audio recordings of trials to be made public, but the state has since reversed that policy. Attachments CC/NY & NYS Focus application: https://lnkd.in/eQy4wuxn

🎙️ New "Free Speech Arguments" Episode: NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta Dive into a crucial First Amendment case challenging California's Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (AB 2273). Key points: - AB 2273 aims to protect minors online but raises significant free speech concerns. - The law requires online services to mitigate "potentially harmful" content for minors - It mandates age verification and content restrictions based on users' age - NetChoice argues the law violates the First Amendment Listen as attorneys Robert Corn-Revere (for NetChoice) and Kristin Liska (for California) present their arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This case could significantly impact online content moderation and free speech rights in the digital realm. Full audio of the oral argument and case-related resources HERE:

Congressional Research Service offers a comprehensive primer on Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (United States). Among other things, "Courts have interpreted Section 230 to foreclose a wide variety of lawsuits and to preempt laws that would make providers and users liable for third-party content. For example, the law has been applied to protect online service providers like social media companies from lawsuits based on their decisions to transmit or take down user-generated content." Related discussion from University of Cambridge Law Professor Stefan Theil on why online platforms lack accountability infrastructure: https://lnkd.in/e9DxtrJF. https://lnkd.in/esrj-g7W