Category Archives: Uncategorized

The court heard four major communications cases in the 2023-24 term and reported opinions in the spring and summer of 2024.

Moody v Netchoice involved state  government attempts to stop “censorship” by social media companies.  At issue was whether the First Amendment allows a   Florida or Texas to require that social-media companies host third-party communications.  The Florida and Texas state laws were intended to ensure that conservative voices were not censored by big tech companies, and the laws were premised on the idea that social media are common carriers.

In a rare unanimous decision, the court said that social media companies are not common carriers but rather private media companies and that they could not be regulated by state governments.  A state government “cannot get its way just by asserting an interest in better balancing the marketplace of ideas,” said the Supreme Court opinion.  “Whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, the basic principles (of the First Amendment) do not vary.”

Among a long list of cases supporting Netchoice are  Republican National Committee v Google, which was dismissed in favor of Google on Aug. 24, 2023.  The RNC alleged that Google had been intentionally misdirecting its emails to Gmail users’ spam folders at the end of each month “to secretly suppress the political speech and income of one major political party.”  The court said the RNC had not proven bad faith and  that, in any event, that would have been protected by section 230 of the CDA. Another similar case  protecting the right of private companies to free speech was YouTube v Prager, 2020.

O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier. When a public official blocks someone from their social media personal, unofficial social media account, is that an act of censorship prohibited by the First Amendment?  The court ruled that public officials who post about topics relating to their work on their personal social media accounts ARE acting for the government, and therefore ARE violating the First Amendment when they block their critics.

Vidal v. Elster,   Does the the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) violate the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure? The proposed trademark in question was “Trump too small.”  The court said that the Lanham Act prohibits the registration of a trademark that identifies a particular living individual, unless that individual agrees.  Refusal to register the trademark does not violate the First Amendment.

MORE: See the SCOTUS Blog 

Protest in Hong Kong, March 2023, held behind “crime tape.”  (Associated Press)

According to the Hong Kong Democracy Council,  authorities have jailed more than 1,500 political prisoners since 2019, half of whom are under the age of 25. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/01/hong-kong-china-crackdown-democracy/

This segment of The Problem with John Stewart was broadcast before the Fox – Dominion settlement      announced April 19, 2023.

Federal agencies will fight online harassment  across four main lines of effort, the Biden administration said March 3, 2023. These are prevention, survivor support, accountability, and research, according to a White House announcement.

Since its launch, the Task Force  to Address Online Harassment and Abuse has heard from hundreds of stakeholders—survivors, advocates, parents, educators, law enforcement, medical and legal professionals, and researchers—who discussed the significant harm caused by online harassment and abuse.

The Task Force is part of Biden’s call to action in the State of Union for solutions to address online safety, health, privacy, and accountability.

By Bill Kovarik  (“How a silent movie informs the current debate over the right to be forgotten.”  CC license. The Conversation) 

In 1915, Gabrielle Darley killed a New Orleans man who had tricked her into a life of prostitution. She was tried, acquitted of murder and within a few years was living a new life under her married name, Melvin. Then a blockbuster movie, “The Red Kimono,” splashed her sensational story across America’s silver screens.

The 1925 film used Darley’s real name and details of her life taken from transcripts of the murder trial. She sued for invasion of privacy and won.

In deciding in favor of Darley, a California court said that people have a right to rehabilitation. “We should permit [people] to continue in the path of rectitude rather than throw [them] back into a life of shame or crime,” the court said. It is a sentiment that is harder to put into practice today, when information is much more readily available. Nonetheless, policymakers and media outlets are looking at the issue.

As a scholar of media history and law, I see Darley’s story as more than an interesting slice of legal and cinematic history. Her case provides an early example of how private people struggle to escape their pasts and how the idea of privacy is linked to rehabilitation.

Continue reading →

By Bill Kovarik
Published in The Conversation, Jan. 15, 2021
Creative Commons license for non-profit republication.

In speeches filled with hatred and falsehoods, a public figure attacks his enemies and calls for marches on Washington. Then, after one particularly virulent address, private media companies close down his channels of communication, prompting consternation from his supporters and calls for a code of conduct to filter out violent rhetoric.

Sound familiar? Well, this was 1938, and the individual in question was Father Charles E. Coughlin, a Nazi-sympathizing Catholic priest with unfettered access to America’s vast radio audiences. The firms silencing him were the broadcasters of the day.

As a media historian, I find more than a little similarity between the stand those stations took back then and the way Twitter, YouTube and Facebook have silenced false claims of election fraud and incitements to violence in the aftermath of the siege on the U.S. Capitol – noticeably by silencing the claims of Donald Trump and his supporters.

A radio ministry

Coughlin’s Detroit ministry had grown up with radio, and, as his sermons grew more political, he began calling President Franklin D. Roosevelt a liar, a betrayer and a double-crosser. His fierce rhetoric fueled rallies and letter-writing campaigns for a dozen right-wing causes, from banking policy to opposing Russian communism. At the height of his popularity, an estimated 30 million Americans listened to his Sunday sermons.

Continue reading →

Parents of children killed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on December 14, 2012 won a libel suit yesterday (June 17, 2019) against the authors of a book that claimed it never happened.

It was a victory for parents who have been besieged with hate mail and death threats from alt-right conspiracy theorists and hoaxers. A similar lawsuit against Alex Jones and his program “InfoWars” is still being contested in court. New York Magazine had a good overview of the basic issues in Sept. 2016.

The question in law is whether public figures like the Sandy Hook parents can recover for expressions of opinion, and whether it is a matter of fact or opinion to say that no children were killed at Sandy Hook and that parents are part of a left-wing conspiracy. First Amendment Watch has a good set of resources and a law student’s guide to the issues.

New York Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger  wrote this on Feb. 20, 2019: America’s founders believed that a free press was essential to democracy because it is the foundation of an informed, engaged citizenry. That conviction, enshrined in the First Amendment, has been embraced by nearly every American president. Thomas Jefferson declared, “The only security of all is in a free press.” John F. Kennedy warned about the risks to “free society without a very, very active press.” Ronald Reagan said, “There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong and independent press to our continued success.”

All these presidents had complaints about their coverage and at times took advantage of the freedom every American has to criticize journalists. But in demonizing the free press as the enemy, simply for performing its role of asking difficult questions and bringing uncomfortable information to light, President Trump is retreating from a distinctly American principle. It’s a principle that previous occupants of the Oval Office fiercely defended regardless of their politics, party affiliation, or complaints about how they were covered.

The phrase “enemy of the people” is not just false, it’s dangerous. It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies. As I have repeatedly told President Trump face to face, there are mounting signs that this incendiary rhetoric is encouraging threats and violence against journalists at home and abroad.

Through 33 presidential administrations, across 167 years, The New York Times has worked to serve the public by fulfilling the fundamental role of the free press. To help people, regardless of their backgrounds or politics, understand their country and the world. To report independently, fairly and accurately. To ask hard questions. To pursue the truth wherever it leads. That will not change.

Judge Roy Moore, the embattled Republican nominee for Alabama’s open U.S. Senate seat, must surely long for the good ole days, says Vincent R. Johnson,  a law professor at St. Mary’s University, in a Nov. 19 op-ed for the San Antonio Express-News. 

Until 1964, the American legal principles governing libel and slander were completely out of sync with the free speech and free press guarantees of the First Amendment.

First, a defamatory statement at that time was presumed to be false. The plaintiff did not have to prove falsity. Second, it made no difference how much care the speaker exercised. If the statement was false, strict liability was imposed. Third, certain statements were presumed to cause harm. Even if a plaintiff presented no evidence of actual losses, a jury could award a large amount of damages based simply on the nastiness of the utterance and the extent of its circulation.

All that changed with the 1964 New York Times v Sullivan case, Johnson notes.