Are social media platforms the new battlegrounds for freedom of speech? Let's look into the heart of the debate with this compelling exploration of Supreme Court decisions, state laws in Florida and Texas, and the future of online communication. In an era dominated by digital discourse, the regulation of social media has become a hot-button issue. But where do we draw the line between free expression and harmful content? Join us as we navigate the complex landscape of online speech, content moderation, and the ever-evolving role of technology in our lives. Discover the legal intricacies behind Supreme Court decisions shaping the digital age, including the impact of landmark cases on social media regulation. Explore the implications of state laws in Florida and Texas, delving into their effects on internet governance, digital rights, and the balance between government intervention and platform autonomy. From the origins of the First Amendment to the nuances of Section 230, this book offers a comprehensive examination of the legal and ethical dilemmas surrounding social media regulation. Gain insights into the challenges of navigating content moderation on digital platforms and the implications for democracy, civil liberties, and the future of online discourse. Whether you're a legal scholar, tech enthusiast, or concerned citizen, this book is essential reading for anyone interested in the intersection of law, technology, and society. Join the conversation and discover the path forward in the complex world of social media regulation.
As the Supreme Court has recognized, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have become important venues for users to exercise free speech rights protected under the First Amendment. Commentators and legislators, however, have questioned whether these social media platforms are living up to their reputation as digital public forums. Some have expressed concern that these sites are not doing enough to counter violent or false speech. At the same time, many argue that the platforms are unfairly banning and restricting access to potentially valuable speech. Currently, federal law does not offer much recourse for social media users who seek to challenge a social media provider's decision about whether and how to present a user's content. Lawsuits predicated on these sites' decisions to host or remove content have been largely unsuccessful, facing at least two significant barriers under existing federal law. First, while individuals have sometimes alleged that these companies violated their free speech rights by discriminating against users' content, courts have held that the First Amendment, which provides protection against state action, is not implicated by the actions of these private companies. Second, courts have concluded that many non-constitutional claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, which provides immunity to providers of interactive computer services, including social media providers, both for certain decisions to host content created by others and for actions taken "voluntarily" and "in good faith" to restrict access to "objectionable" material. Some have argued that Congress should step in to regulate social media sites. Government action regulating internet content would constitute state action that may implicate the First Amendment. In particular, social media providers may argue that government regulations impermissibly infringe on the providers' own constitutional free speech rights. Legal commentators have argued that when social media platforms decide whether and how to post users' content, these publication decisions are themselves protected under the First Amendment. There are few court decisions evaluating whether a social media site, by virtue of publishing, organizing, or even editing protected speech, is itself exercising free speech rights. Consequently, commentators have largely analyzed the question of whether the First Amendment protects a social media site's publication decisions by analogy to other types of First Amendment cases. There are at least three possible frameworks for analyzing governmental restrictions on social media sites' ability to moderate user content. Which of these three frameworks applies will depend largely on the particular action being regulated. Under existing law, social media platforms may be more likely to receive First Amendment protection when they exercise more editorial discretion in presenting user-generated content, rather than if they neutrally transmit all such content. In addition, certain types of speech receive less protection under the First Amendment. Courts may be more likely to uphold regulations targeting certain disfavored categories of speech such as obscenity or speech inciting violence. Finally, if a law targets a social media site's conduct rather than speech, it may not trigger the protections of the First Amendment at all.
A broad explanation of the various dimensions of the problem of bad speech on the internet within the American context. One of the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about bad speech-hate speech, disinformation and propaganda campaigns, and incitement of violence-on the internet, and in particular speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent cast of contributors--including Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Warner, Newt Minow, Tim Wu, Cass Sunstein, Jack Balkin, Emily Bazelon, and others--to explore the various dimensions of this problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to develop remedies given that some of these forms of bad speech are ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Bollinger and Stone argue that it is important to remember that the last time we encountered major new communications technology-television and radio-we established a federal agency to provide oversight and to issue regulations to protect and promote the public interest. Featuring a variety of perspectives from some of America's leading experts on this hotly contested issue, this volume offers new insights for the future of free speech in the social media era.
The world is in the midst of a social media paradigm. Once viewed as trivial and peripheral, social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook and WeChat have become an important part of the information and communication infrastructure of society. They are bound up with business and politics as well as everyday life, work, and personal relationships. This international Handbook addresses the most significant research themes, methodological approaches and debates in the study of social media. It contains substantial chapters written especially for this book by leading scholars from a range of disciplinary perspectives, covering everything from computational social science to sexual self-expression. Part 1: Histories And Pre-Histories Part 2: Approaches And Methods Part 3: Platforms, Technologies And Business Models Part 4: Cultures And Practices Part 5: Social And Economic Domains
Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat allow users to connect with one another and share information with the click of a mouse or a tap on a touchscreen—and have become vital tools for professionals in the news and strategic communication fields. But as rapidly as these services have grown in popularity, their legal ramifications aren’t widely understood. To what extent do communicators put themselves at risk for defamation and privacy lawsuits when they use these tools, and what rights do communicators have when other users talk about them on social networks? How can an entity maintain control of intellectual property issues—such as posting copyrighted videos and photographs—consistent with the developing law in this area? How and when can journalists and publicists use these tools to do their jobs without endangering their employers or clients? Including two new chapters that examine First Amendment issues and ownership of social media accounts and content, Social Media and the Law brings together thirteen media law scholars to address these questions and more, including current issues like copyright, online impersonation, anonymity, cyberbullying, sexting, and live streaming. Students and professional communicators alike need to be aware of laws relating to defamation, privacy, intellectual property, and government regulation—and this guidebook is here to help them navigate the tricky legal terrain of social media.
The principles of freedom of expression have been developed over centuries. How are they reserved and passed on? How can large internet gatekeepers be required to respect freedom of expression and to contribute actively to a diverse and plural marketplace of ideas? These are key issues for media regulation, and will remain so for the foreseeable decades. The book starts with the foundations of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and then goes on to explore the general issues concerning the regulation of the internet as a specific medium. It then turns to analysing the legal issues relating to the three most important gatekeepers whose operations directly affect freedom of expression: ISPs, search engines and social media platforms. Finally it summarises the potential future regulatory and media policy directions. The book takes a comparative legal approach, focusing primarily on English and American regulations, case law and jurisprudential debates, but it also details the relevant international developments (Council of Europe, European Union) as well as the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.
A key intermediary between courts and the public are the journalists who monitor the actions of justices and report their decisions, pronouncements, and proclivities. Justices and Journalists: The Global Perspective is the first volume of its kind - a comparative analysis of the relationship between supreme courts and the press who cover them. Understanding this relationship is critical in a digital media age when government transparency is increasingly demanded by the public and judicial actions are the subject of press and public scrutiny. Richard Davis and David Taras take a comparative look at how justices in countries around the world relate to the media, the interactive points between the courts and the press, the roles of television and the digital media, and the future of the relationship.
Findings from the high-profile John S. and James L. Knight Foundation-sponsored surveys of over 100,000 high school students in 2004 and 2006 provided a wake-up call to those interested in preserving the future of free expression rights in America. These studies documented the current lack of appreciation for free expression rights among the nation's high school students, and thus raised serious questions about the vitality of those rights as this generation reaches adulthood. In The Future of the First Amendment, the scholars who conducted the Knight studies identify a number of important connections and relationships that education reformers should account for as they seek to raise the status of the First Amendment among the nation's youth. This book documents and explores the ramifications of First Amendment education and student media activities--both traditional and digital--on student support for free expression rights. Linking these curricular and extra-curricular activities to the next generation's tolerance for free expression rights, it provides guidance to educators and policy-makers on methods of improving the next generation's appreciation for these rights which are so central to the health of American democracy.
One of the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about ""bad"" speech--hate speech, disinformation and propaganda campaigns, and incitement of violence--on the Internet, primarily speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent cast of contributors to explore the various dimensions of this problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to develop remedies given that some of these forms of ""bad"" speech are ordina.
