Recently, our posts have discussed the rising call to reform Section 230 of the federal 1996 Communications Decency Act. Now, a controversial Florida Bill provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to take up social media regulation on First Amendment grounds, potentially avoiding Section 230 reform.
First Amendment
Florida’s proposed social media platform law: Is your company a social media platform?

On May 23, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit upheld an injunction on parts of Florida’s controversial social media “censorship” law, S.B. 7072, in NetChoice, LLC v. Att’y Gen., Fla. In a 67-page opinion, the three-judge panel held that large swaths of the law’s provisions were unconstitutional, finding that social media companies are private actors and government regulation of content-moderation policies “unconstitutionally burden[ed]” their First Amendment rights.
Social media and difficulties of a TRO in defamation actions

Companies—especially those based outside the U.S.—sometimes ask why it is so difficult to bring a lawsuit based on something posted on social media. A recent federal court case from California can help show how courts view these actions. Prehired, LLC, v. Provins, No. 2:22-cv-00384-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal. April 12, 2022) (2022 WL 1093237).
U.S. Supreme Court ended battle concerning President Trump’s blocking of individuals on Twitter
Introduction
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ended the legal battle between former President Donald Trump and individuals whom Mr. Trump had blocked on Twitter, by granting the government’s petition for a writ of certiorari filed when Mr. Trump was still the President, vacating the Second Circuit’s judgment against Mr. Trump, and remanding the case with instructions to dismiss the matter as moot. See Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, et al., 593 U.S. __ (2021).
The legal discussions offered in this case may be significant for future disputes concerning speech made on interactive online venues made available by corporations and/or individuals.
Banning critics from social media can constitute a First Amendment violation

The question of whether a public official may legally suppress dissent or criticism by banning dissenters from social media pages administered by the public official has recently entered the United States’ legal discourse.…
How anonymous can you be on social media?
In November of 2017, a federal appeals court rejected employment-related site Glassdoor’s claim that its users had a First Amendment right to anonymity that would protect their information from disclosure pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. The panel also sustained a contempt order that was entered by the district court to enforce the decision. (In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 16-03-217, Civ. No. 17-16221, D.C.No. 2:17-mc-00036-DJH (9th Cir. Nov. 8, 2017)). (We had previously covered an unrelated case involving anonymity of reviews on Glassdoor.com posted by former employees here.)
Ninth Circuit Reverses Social Media Gag Order

Currently, in the midst of a jury trial in U.S. federal court, the San Diego Comic Convention (SDCC) has had a bumpy ride in its trademark suit in the Southern District of California against Dan Farr Productions and its co-founders for their use of the name Salt Lake Comic Con. On October 26, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s “gag order,” which essentially prevented the defendants from posting about the case on any social media platform.
U.S. Supreme Court Discusses Social Media

On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing social media sites was unconstitutional. This post will review the case and discuss a few takeaways for companies.
Social Media, Age, and the Entertainment Industry

Can a state law prevent a social media site from publicly posting accurate age information about individuals in the entertainment industry—even if that information is posted by users? The California legislature and Governor believed it was permissible, and the legislation went onto effect on September 24, 2016 (Cal. AB 1687, adding Cal. Civ. § 1798.83.5). Five months later, a federal judge temporarily enjoined the government from enforcing that law, in IMDb.com Inc. v. Becerra, No. 16-cv-06535-VC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2017).