Supreme Court

kagan:-florida-social-media-law-seems-like-“classic-first-amendment-violation”

Kagan: Florida social media law seems like “classic First Amendment violation”

florida social media law, Policy, Supreme Court, texas social media law / /
The US Supreme Court building is seen on a sunny day. Kids mingle around a small pool on the grounds in front of the building.

Enlarge / The Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, DC, in May 2023.

Getty Images | NurPhoto

The US Supreme Court today heard oral arguments on Florida and Texas state laws that impose limits on how social media companies can moderate user-generated content.

The Florida law prohibits large social media sites like Facebook and Twitter (aka X) from banning politicians and says they must “apply censorship, deplatforming, and shadow banning standards in a consistent manner among its users on the platform.” The Texas statute prohibits large social media companies from moderating posts based on a user’s “viewpoint.” The laws were supported by Republican officials from 20 other states.

The tech industry says both laws violate the companies’ First Amendment right to use editorial discretion in deciding what kinds of user-generated content to allow on their platforms and how to present that content. The Supreme Court will decide whether the laws can be enforced while the industry lawsuits against Florida and Texas continue in lower courts.

How the Supreme Court rules at this stage in these two cases could give one side or the other a big advantage in the ongoing litigations. Paul Clement, a lawyer for Big Tech trade group NetChoice, today urged justices to reject the idea that content moderation conducted by private companies is censorship.

“I really do think that censorship is only something that the government can do to you,” Clement said. “And if it’s not the government, you really shouldn’t label it ‘censorship.’ It’s just a category mistake.”

Companies use editorial discretion to make websites useful for users and advertisers, he said, arguing that content moderation is an expressive activity protected by the First Amendment.

Justice Kagan talks anti-vaxxers, insurrectionists

Henry Whitaker, Florida’s solicitor general, said that social media platforms marketed themselves as neutral forums for free speech but now claim to be “editors of their users’ speech, rather like a newspaper.”

“They contend that they possess a broad First Amendment right to censor anything they host on their sites, even when doing so contradicts their own representations to consumers,” he said. Social media platforms should not be allowed to censor speech any more than phone companies are allowed to, he argued.

Contending that social networks don’t really act as editors, he said that “it is a strange kind of editor that does not actually look at the material” before it is posted. He also said that “upwards of 99 percent of what goes on the platforms is basically passed through without review.”

Justice Elena Kagan replied, “But that 1 percent seems to have gotten some people extremely angry.” Describing the platforms’ moderation practices, she said the 1 percent of content that is moderated is “like, ‘we don’t want anti-vaxxers on our site or we don’t want insurrectionists on our site.’ I mean, that’s what motivated these laws, isn’t it? And that’s what’s getting people upset about them is that other people have different views about what it means to provide misinformation as to voting and things like that.”

Later, Kagan said, “I’m taking as a given that YouTube or Facebook or whatever has expressive views. There are particular kinds of expression defined by content that they don’t want anywhere near their site.”

Pointing to moderation of hate speech, bullying, and misinformation about voting and public health, Kagan asked, “Why isn’t that a classic First Amendment violation for the state to come in and say, ‘we’re not going to allow you to enforce those sorts of restrictions?'”

Whitaker urged Kagan to “look at the objective activity being regulated, namely censoring and deplatforming, and ask whether that expresses a message. Because they [the social networks] host so much content, an objective observer is not going to readily attribute any particular piece of content that appears on their site to some decision to either refrain from or to censor or deplatform.”

Thomas: Who speaks when an algorithm moderates?

Justice Clarence Thomas expressed doubts about whether content moderation conveys an editorial message. “Tell me again what the expressive conduct is that, for example, YouTube engages in when it or Twitter deplatforms someone. What is the expressive conduct and to whom is it being communicated?” Thomas asked.

Clement said the platforms “are sending a message to that person and to their broader audience that that material” isn’t allowed. As a result, users are “not going to see material that violates the terms of use. They’re not going to see a bunch of material that glorifies terrorism. They’re not going to see a bunch of material that glorifies suicide,” Clement said.

Thomas asked who is doing the “speaking” when an algorithm performs content moderation, particularly when “it’s a deep-learning algorithm which teaches itself and has very little human intervention.”

“So who’s speaking then, the algorithm or the person?” Thomas asked.

Clement said that Facebook and YouTube are “speaking, because they’re the ones that are using these devices to run their editorial discretion across these massive volumes.” The need to use algorithms to automate moderation demonstrates “the volume of material on these sites, which just shows you the volume of editorial discretion,” he said.

Kagan: Florida social media law seems like “classic First Amendment violation” Read More »

anti-abortion-group’s-studies-retracted-before-supreme-court-mifepristone-case

Anti-abortion group’s studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case

Abortion, fda, health, mifepristone, retraction, Science, Scientific publishing, Supreme Court / /

retracted —

A large number of other, non-retracted studies find mifepristone to be very safe.

–

Mifepristone (Mifeprex) and misoprostol, the two drugs used in a medication abortion, are seen at the Women's Reproductive Clinic, which provides legal medication abortion services, in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, on June 17, 2022.

Enlarge / Mifepristone (Mifeprex) and misoprostol, the two drugs used in a medication abortion, are seen at the Women’s Reproductive Clinic, which provides legal medication abortion services, in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, on June 17, 2022.

Scientific journal publisher Sage has retracted key abortion studies cited by anti-abortion groups in a legal case aiming to revoke regulatory approval of the abortion and miscarriage medication, mifepristone—a case that has reached the US Supreme Court, with a hearing scheduled for March 26.

On Monday, Sage announced the retraction of three studies, all published in the journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology. All three were led by James Studnicki, who works for The Charlotte Lozier Institute, a research arm of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. The publisher said the retractions were based on various problems related to the studies’ methods, analyses, and presentation, as well as undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Two of the studies were cited by anti-abortion groups in their lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA), which claimed the regulator’s approval and regulation of mifepristone was unlawful. The two studies were also cited by District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas, who issued a preliminary injunction last April to revoke the FDA’s 2000 approval of mifepristone. A conservative panel of judges for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans partially reversed that ruling months later, but the Supreme Court froze the lower court’s order until the appeals process had concluded.

Mifepristone, considered safe and effective by the FDA and medical experts, is used in over half of abortions in the US.

Criticism

Amid the legal dispute, the now-retracted studies drew immediate criticism from experts, who pointed out flaws. Of the three, the most influential and heavily criticized is the 2021 study titled “A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Emergency Room Utilization Following Mifepristone Chemical and Surgical Abortions, 1999–2015” (PDF). The study suggested that up to 35 percent of women on Medicaid who had a medication abortion between 2001 and 2015 visited an emergency department within 30 days afterward. Its main claim was that medication abortions led to a higher rate of emergency department visits than surgical abortions.

Critics noted a number of problems: The study looked at all emergency department visits, not only visits related to abortion. This could capture medical care beyond abortion-related conditions, because people on Medicaid often lack primary care and resort to going to emergency departments for routine care. When the researchers tried to narrow down the visits to just those related to abortion, they included medical codes that were not related to abortion, such as codes for ectopic pregnancy, and they didn’t capture the seriousness of the condition that prompted the visit. Medication abortions can cause bleeding, and women can go to the emergency department if they don’t know what amount of bleeding is normal. The study also counted multiple visits from the same individual patient as multiple visits, likely inflating the numbers. Last, the study did not put the data in context of emergency department use by Medicaid beneficiaries in general over the time period.

In contrast to Studnicki’s study, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists notes that studies looking at tens of thousands of medication abortions have concluded that “Serious side effects occur in less than 1 percent of patients, and major adverse events—significant infection, blood loss, or hospitalization—occur in less than 0.3 percent of patients. The risk of death is almost non-existent.”

Anti-abortion group’s studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case Read More »

supreme-court-denies-epic-v.-apple-petitions,-opening-up-ios-payment-options

Supreme Court denies Epic v. Apple petitions, opening up iOS payment options

App Store, Apple, Apple v Epic, epic, fortnite, gaming, Google, Policy, Supreme Court, Tech / /

Epic v. Apple —

Most of Epic’s arguments are moot now, but one point will change the App Store.

–

Fortnite characters looking across the many islands and vast realm of the game.

Enlarge / Artist’s conception of iOS developers after today’s Supreme Court ruling, surveying a new landscape of payment options and subscription signaling.

Epic Games

The Supreme Court declined to hear either of the petitions resulting from the multi-year, multi-court Epic v. Apple antitrust dispute. That leaves most of Epic’s complaints about Apple’s practices unanswered, but the gaming company achieved one victory on pricing notices.

It all started in August 2020, when Epic sought to work around Apple and Google’s app stores and implemented virtual currency purchases directly inside Fortnite. The matter quickly escalated to the courts, with firms like Spotify and Microsoft backing Epic’s claim that Apple’s App Store being the only way to load apps onto an iPhone violated antitrust laws.

The matter reached trial in May 2021. The precise definitions of “games” and “marketplace” were fervently debated. Epic scored a seemingly huge victory in September 2021 when a Northern California judge demanded that Apple allow developers to offer their own payment buttons and communicate with app customers about alternate payment options. An appeals court upheld that Apple’s App Store itself wasn’t a “walled garden” that violated antitrust laws but kept the ruling that Apple had to open up its payments and messaging.

Today’s denial of petitions for certiorari means that Apple has mostly run out of legal options to prevent changes to its App Store policies now that multiple courts have found its “anti-steering” language anticompetitive. Links and messaging from developers should soon be able to send users to alternative payment options for apps rather than forcing them to stay entirely inside Apple’s App Store, resulting in a notable commission for Apple.

Epic’s goals to see Fortnite restored to the App Store or see third-party stores or sideloading on iPhones remain unfulfilled. This is not the case with Epic’s antitrust suit against Google, which in mid-December went strongly in Epic’s favor. With a unanimous jury verdict against Google, a judge this month will determine how to address Google’s violations—potentially including Epic’s request that it and other developers be allowed to issue their own app stores and payment systems on Android devices.

Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games, wrote in a thread on X (formerly Twitter) that the Supreme Court’s denial means the “battle to open iOS to competing stores and payments is lost in the United States” and that it was a “sad outcome for all developers.” Sweeney noted that as of today, developers on Apple’s platforms can “tell US customers about better prices on the web.” And he noted that regulatory and policy actions around the world, including the upcoming EU Digital Markets Act, may have further impact.

Apple has yet to comment on today’s Supreme Court decision.

Supreme Court denies Epic v. Apple petitions, opening up iOS payment options Read More »

after-losing-everywhere-else,-elon-musk-asks-scotus-to-get-sec-off-his-back

After losing everywhere else, Elon Musk asks SCOTUS to get SEC off his back

elon musk, elon musk sec, Policy, Supreme Court / /

Musk v. SEC —

Musk’s last-ditch effort to terminate settlement over “funding secured” tweets.

–

Elon Musk on stage at an event, resting his chin on his hand

Enlarge / Elon Musk at an AI event with Britain Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in London on Thursday, Nov. 2, 2023.

Getty Images | WPA Pool

Elon Musk yesterday appealed to the Supreme Court in a last-ditch effort to terminate his settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Musk has claimed he was coerced into the deal with the SEC and that it violates his free speech rights, but the settlement has been upheld by every court that’s reviewed it so far.

In his petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, Musk said the SEC settlement forced him to “waive his First Amendment rights to speak on matters ranging far beyond the charged violations.”

The SEC case began after Musk’s August 2018 tweets stating, “Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured” and “Investor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a shareholder vote.” The SEC sued Musk and Tesla, saying the tweets were false and “led to significant market disruption.”

The settlement required Musk and Tesla to each pay $20 million in penalties, forced Musk to step down from his board chairman post, and required Musk to get Tesla’s pre-approval for tweets or other social media posts that may contain information material to the company or its shareholders.

Musk told the Supreme Court that the need to get pre-approval for tweets “is a quintessential prior restraint that the law forbids.”

In the settlement, “the SEC demanded that Mr. Musk refrain indefinitely from making any public statements on a wide range of topics unless he first received approval from a securities lawyer,” Musk’s petition said. “Only months later, the SEC sought to hold Mr. Musk in contempt of court on the basis that Mr. Musk allegedly had not obtained such approval for a post on Twitter (now X). In effect, the SEC sought contempt sanctions—up to and including imprisonment—for Mr. Musk’s exercise of his First Amendment rights.”

Musk’s court losses

In April 2022, Musk’s attempt to get out of the settlement was rejected by a US District Court judge. Musk appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, but a three-judge panel unanimously ruled against him in May 2023. Musk asked the appeals court for an en banc rehearing in front of all the court’s judges, but that request was denied in July, leaving the Supreme Court as his only remaining option.

The 2nd Circuit panel ruling dismissed Musk’s argument that the settlement is a “prior restraint” on his speech, writing that “Parties entering into consent decrees may voluntarily waive their First Amendment and other rights.” The judges also saw “no evidence to support Musk’s contention that the SEC has used the consent decree to conduct bad-faith, harassing investigations of his protected speech.”

There is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will take up Musk’s case. Musk’s petition says the case presents the constitutional question of whether “a party’s acceptance of a benefit prevents that party from contending that the government violated the unconstitutional conditions doctrine in requiring a waiver of constitutional rights in exchange for that benefit.”

Musk argues that his settlement violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, which “limits the government’s ability to condition benefits on the relinquishment of constitutional rights.” He says his case also presents the question of “whether the government can insulate its demands that settling defendants waive constitutional rights from judicial scrutiny.”

“This petition presents an apt opportunity for the Court to clarify that government settlements are not immune from constitutional scrutiny, to the immediate benefit of the hundreds of defendants who settle cases with the SEC each year,” Musk’s petition said.

Musk complains about SEC investigations

Musk claims he is burdened with an “ever-present chilling effect that results from the pre-approval provision” and complained that the SEC has continued to investigate him. “In the past three years, the SEC has at all times kept at least one investigation open regarding Mr. Musk or Tesla. The SEC’s actions—in seeking contempt and then maintaining a steady stream of investigations—chills Mr. Musk’s speech,” the petition said.

As previously noted, the 2nd Circuit appeals court judges did not think the SEC investigations of Musk had gone too far. “To the contrary, the record indicates that the SEC has opened just three inquiries into Musk’s tweets since 2018,” the May 2023 appeals court decision said. The first of those three investigations led to the settlement that Musk is trying to get out of. The second and third investigations sought information about tweets in 2019 and 2021.

Although Musk has repeatedly lost his attempts to undo the SEC settlement, he prevailed against a class-action lawsuit that sought financial damages for Tesla shareholders. The judge in that case ruled that Musk’s tweets about having secured funding to take Tesla private were false and reckless, but a jury sided with Musk on the questions of whether he knew the tweets were false and whether they caused Tesla investors to lose money.

Despite the class-action suit’s failure, Tesla investors are getting some money. The $40 million in fines paid to the SEC by Musk and Tesla, plus interest, is in the process of being distributed to investors.

After losing everywhere else, Elon Musk asks SCOTUS to get SEC off his back Read More »