Tom Garrett’s Post

Curious about the latest decision in the ongoing free speech challenges to the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act? Check our my new article with IAPP to learn more! A huge thank you to Cobun Zweifel-Keegan, J.D., CIPP/US, CIPM and Müge Fazlioglu, Ph.D. for their help and expertise in crafting this piece! Read it here: https://lnkd.in/ewq-CXP4

The U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear arguments today on the legality of Republican-backed laws in Florida and Texas that restrict the ability of social media platforms to curb content that these companies deem objectionable in a pair of cases that could reshape free-speech rights in the digital age, report John Kruzel and Andrew Chung. At issue is whether the 2021 state laws regulating content-moderation practices by large social media platforms violate the free speech protections for the companies under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Lower courts were split on the issue, blocking key provisions of Florida's law while upholding the Texas measure. The laws were challenged by tech industry trade groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include Meta, Google, TikTok and Snap. Neither law has gone into effect due to the litigation. Appellate veteran Paul Clement (above) will argue for NetChoice. Florida Solicitor General Henry Whitaker will defend the state’s law, and Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson will argue for his state. The justices must decide whether the First Amendment protects the editorial discretion of the social media platforms and prohibits governments from forcing companies to publish content against their will. Another issue is whether the state laws unlawfully burden the free speech rights of social media companies by requiring them to provide users with individualized explanations for certain content-moderation decisions, including the removal of posts from their platforms. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

Almost every lawyer who has gone to work on Capitol Hill has had that moment of realizing that most congressional staff / Members of Congress don't labor over statutory language the way courts imply they do. The #Chevron decision has me remembering my time studying Law & Government (Admin law focus) at American University Washington College of Law, deep in the weeds of statutory construction while interning with the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways & Means. With this (and related) decisions, it is going to be essential that staff & Members get professional development / training on rules of statutory construction and *defensive drafting.* (Is that a term? If not now it soon will be!)

Today, the Supreme Court overturned the “Chevron deference” legal precedent that for the past 40 years has directed courts to defer to agencies’ interpretation when Congress has not addressed an issue in statute or when the text of the law is ambiguous. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘄𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿. That includes the intention to give discretion on certain topics to agencies. The post-Chevron caveat is that discretion given to agencies will now need to be explicit. But as POPVOX Foundation Cofounder and Executive Director Marci Harris writes: "Congressional staff and Members will need to be introduced to [statutory construction] principles as a part of their orientation and training for policy roles, with ongoing updates and professional development as a new policy status quo develops.” Now is the time for Congressional leadership to invest in the Legislative branch so it has the staff and technology it needs to stay on top of regulatory questions. Read more: https://lnkd.in/gUQqeutJ #chevron #administrativelaw #congress #supremecourt #chevrondoctrine #chevrondeference

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

The Supreme Court recently ruled on Moody v. NetChoice, a case reviewing two conflicting appellate court decisions dealing with state laws designed to force social media companies to host content. In a new insight, Director of Technology and Innovation Policy Jeff Westling walks through the majority opinion for the case and discusses the implications for social media content moderation going forward. Key points: The Supreme Court remanded two major content moderation cases dealing with state laws designed to force social media platforms to remain politically neutral for further review, citing the need for a more rigorous factual analysis of the full extent of the laws. Despite the remand, the majority opinion casts doubt on the constitutionality of the state laws, specifically criticizing the Fifth Circuit for upholding a Texas law based on a faulty understanding of the First Amendment. As the Court makes clear, as Congress continues to consider legislation that could impact social media content moderation decisions, it cannot simply force private speakers to present views the speakers don’t wish to host or limit the spread of content Congress doesn’t like.

With the year coming to an end we are so excited and proud to share Volume 77, Issue One of the Federal Communications Law Journal - The Tech Journal. A huge thank you to our members and Editorial Board for their hard work in producing this publication. An additional thank you to the Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA - The Tech Bar) for their continued support! The Issue includes the following Article and Notes: Articles: Connor Haffey, Bridging the U.S. Regulatory Gap: Why the FCC Should Authorize Novel Commercial Space Activities Harvey Reiter, The FCC’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day Notes: Addison Spencer, E-Rate Reporting Mechanisms: Closing CIPA’s Backdoor for Unconstitutional Infringements on Students’ First Amendment Rights   Andrew Ware, Invisible Infrastructure: Adapting the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act to Meet Current Needs Luke Posniewski, Alone Together: How the FTC Can Develop a Transatlantic Approach to Consumer Privacy in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism https://lnkd.in/g5Vb2J_x

The Supreme Cost of Lingering MetadataSupreme Court politics aside, the lingering metadata demonstrates the potential risk and value of editorial metadata embedded within documents that have not been ‘scrubbed’ prior to production. Even when revision history has been disabled, legal hold or retention policies may create unlimited versions based on Auto-Save settings. Using Save A Copy may retained older version history.

On July 1st, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, marking a significant development in the realm of internet regulation and reinforcing the application of longstanding First Amendment principles to the online world. Learn more about the landmark case and team of Wilson Sonsini attorney's who advised Computer & Communications Industry Association in the matter, impacting internet free speech and rights, at: https://lnkd.in/gSzqsXnJ

The Legal Reform is Reversing Since 2019, the only best thing that happened to #Ethiopia was the series of legal reforms done by the Council for Judicial Reform. That reform removed some of the legal hurdles for media registration, civil society operation, and so on. Unfortunarely, the then reforming government grew unhappy about them once it started to consolidate power and uncovered its authoritarian true identity. Consequently, the first victim of the reversal of legal reform gains is going to be the media law. The media law was revised in a way that empowers media, protects journalists, and downgrade the authorities over regulatory tendency by giving self regulatory platforms to the media outlets themselves. Now, a draft bill, with revisions of these provisions, is sent to the parliament. The draft is sent to the standing committee for democracy at the parliament. As the culture goes, after two public hearings, we might find it adopted. The draft bill changes a lot of things all to increase the executive body's authority in media regulation. Read a little bit about the changes here [in AM]: https://lnkd.in/eRTcY8WC