深夜福利影视-深夜福利影院-深夜福利影院在线-深夜福利影院在线观看-深夜福利在线播放-深夜福利在线导航-深夜福利在线观看八区-深夜福利在线观看免费

【статья рк о хранении детской порнографии】Enter to watch online.Supreme Court questions if states can enforce social media censorship

【статья рк о хранении детской порнографии】Enter to watch online.Supreme Court questions if states can enforce social media censorship

The статья рк о хранении детской порнографииSupreme Court is trying to decide how far the First Amendment reaches when it comes to social media.

On Monday, the nine justices heard a pair of cases that question if states can force social media platforms to abide by censorship rules — even when the platforms deem those posts hateful or otherwise objectionable. Here's what we know.

SEE ALSO: US Supreme Court warns of dangers of AI in legal profession

Which cases did the Supreme Court hear?

A relatively recent pair of laws in Texas and Florida were passed in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The laws argued that social media companies were censoring conservative users on their platforms and limited the avenues that social media companies can take concerning moderating content on the site. 


You May Also Like

"Freedom of speech is under attack in Texas," Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott said when he signed the bill into law in 2021. "There is a dangerous movement by some social media companies to silence conservative ideas and values. This is wrong and we will not allow it in Texas."

Two trade groups representing social media platforms have challenged the laws, from an appeals court up to the Supreme Court. Neither state is allowed to fully enforce the law yet, but it all depends on how the Supreme Court eventually rules. 

"There is nothing more Orwellian than the government trying to dictate what viewpoints are distributed in the name of free expression," Matt Schruers, the president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, a trade group for social media companies, told NPR. "And that's what's at issue in this case."

Schruers said that these social media companies need to have "guidelines and terms of use to make sure that a community isn't polluted." Without being able to do their own content moderation, the industry argues, social media sites will be forced to publish more misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech, allowing more sinister activity can take place online. "And that's everything from posting dog pictures in the cat forum to barbeque in the vegan forum to far more serious things like trying to groom children in a children's site."

Mashable Light Speed Want more out-of-this world tech, space and science stories? Sign up for Mashable's weekly Light Speed newsletter. By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Thanks for signing up!

Why is this so important?

Some legal experts argue that this is the most important First Amendment case in this generation. As Chief Justice John Roberts said during the hours-long arguments, "I wonder, since we're talking about the First Amendment, whether our first concern should be with the state regulating what, you know, we have called the modern public square?"

Basically, the judges are deciding whether the government should tell social media companies what they can or can not put on their platforms, or if social media companies are responsible for that alone. 

"Just as the government couldn’t force Benjamin Franklin to publish its preferred messages in his newspapers, Florida and Texas can’t force websites to curate, display, and spread their preferred content," Chris Marchese, Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a press release. "The First Amendment protects us and our speech from government encroachment — not the other way around. We are confident the Supreme Court will agree."

The state argues that social media platforms are actually currently censoring users — and that is a First Amendment violation on its own. 

"The platforms do not have a First Amendment right to apply their censorship policies in an inconsistent manner and to censor and deplatform certain users," Florida Solicitor General Henry Whitaker told the justices Monday, according to NPR.

The justices are going to help categorize social media, which is a lot more difficult than it sounds. Is Facebook basically like a phone company, where no one gets filtered or censored? Or is it a newspaper, where information is curated and edited and rely on the protection of the First Amendment? Or, as Justice Alito said, is it neither?

In short: This Supreme Court ruling could decide the fate of free speech on the internet as we know it.

Which social media platforms does this cover?

That's kind of confusing, and even the justices aren't sure. It seems like it definitely covers sites like Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and X — but what about Uber or Venmo? We don't really know, but the Supreme Court will likely rule on the biggest social media platforms.

When will the Court give their answers?

The Supreme Court typically hands down their decision over the summer, before the last day of the Court's term. They could rule earlier, but don't hold your breath.

Topics Facebook Instagram Social Media X/Twitter Politics Meta

Latest Updates

主站蜘蛛池模板: 国产一区二区三区中文字幕 | 国产成人精品手机在线观看 | 国产欧美日韩综合一区二区三区 | 国产一卡2卡三卡4卡精 | 国产精品国产欧美综合一区 | 1024你懂的在线播放欧日韩 | 国产91丝袜在线播放动漫蜜月 | 国产麻豆精品乱码一区 | 国产亚洲日本人在线观看 | 国产日韩aⅴ无码一区二区三区 | 91亚洲精品亚洲人成在线观看 | 国产69堂一区二区三 | 成人欧美一区在线视频在线观看 | 国产内射大屁股白浆一区二区 | 国产精品日日摸 | 精品一区二区av天堂 | 国产一区鲁鲁在线视频免费播放 | 国产午夜精品一区二区三区视频 | 国产av福利片一二三四区 | 国产精品国产午夜免费看福利 | 91福利国产在线在线播放 | 69国产亚洲精品av久久 | 国产成人精品免费视频网页大全 | 2025国产精品自在自线 | 国产av综合第一页 | 国产尤物精彩视频在线 | 国产成人免费午夜在线观看 | 精品人妻大屁股白浆无码久久 | 精品久久久久久久无码中文 | 成人无码午夜在线观看 | 国产真实高潮太爽了十八 | 国产在线一区在线视频 | 国产欧美精品一区二区三区四区 | 精品国产一区二区三区国产区 | 2025国产成人精品久久 | 国产精品成人99久久久久 | 69国产超薄丝袜足j在线直播 | 成人免费无码大片a毛片抽搐色欲 | 国产一区二区三区亚洲av | 国产精品免费观看一区二区 | 成人日韩欧美国产黄片视频 |