NetChoice

Last updated

NetChoice is a trade association of online businesses that advocates for free expression and free enterprise on the internet. It currently has six active First Amendment lawsuits over state-level internet regulations, including NetChoice v. Paxton, Moody v. NetChoice, NetChoice v. Bonta and NetChoice v. Yost. [1]

Contents

Membership

NetChoice's members include Amazon, Google, Lyft, Meta, Nextdoor, PayPal, Snap, TikTok, Verisign, Waymo, and X.

Lawsuits

Moody v. NetChoice

In May 2021, Florida passed SB 7072, a bill to ban social media companies from "deplatforming" users who are political candidates or "journalistic enterprises," among other things. [2] The bill contained an exemption for companies that operated a theme park or entertainment complex in Florida. This exemption was removed later after DeSantis objected to The Walt Disney Company's challenge to the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, also known as the "Don't Say Gay" law.

NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) challenged the law shortly after it was passed. Judge Robert Hinkle of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted a preliminary injunction on most of SB 7072 in June 2021, finding that "balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate governmental interest" and that social media companies' content moderation is First Amendment-protected editorial discretion. The Eleventh Circuit upheld most of the district court's injunction in May 2022. In September 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari of Moody and its companion case, NetChoice v. Paxton. The cases were heard together on February 26, 2024. [3]

NetChoice v. Paxton

In September 2021, Texas passed House Bill 20, a measure to ban popular social media services from moderating content based on "viewpoint" and from adding addenda, like fact-checks, to their users’ posts, among other things.

NetChoice and CCIA sued Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, in federal court to block the law's implementation. On December 1, 2021, the federal district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the law's enforcement. The court ruled that HB 20 was unconstitutional because content moderation is First Amendment-protected editorial discretion. Texas appealed the district court's decision to grant an injunction, and in May 2022, a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a one-sentence order for Texas, allowing the law to take effect.

Two days later, NetChoice and CCIA petitioned the Supreme Court to vacate the stay and reinstate the district court's injunction. They argued that the Fifth Circuit's unreasoned order deprived them of "careful review and a meaningful decision" and that reinstating the district court's stay would preserve the status quo while the law's constitutionality continued to be litigated. On May 31, 2022, the Supreme Court agreed, vacating the Fifth Circuit's stay by a 5–4 vote to allow the injunction to take effect once more. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented. Justice Kagan voted to deny the stay as well, but did not write to explain her decision.

On September 16, 2022, a panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled that the district court erred in issuing its injunction, saying that the First Amendment does not protect social media companies' editorial discretion over what user generated content to publish. [4] The Fifth Circuit's ruling created a circuit split with the Eleventh Circuit which, in May 2022, largely upheld an injunction against a similar law in NetChoice v. Moody.

In September 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari of Paxton and NetChoice v. Moody. The cases were heard together on February 26, 2024. [3]

NetChoice v. Yost

On July 5, 2023, Ohio governor Mike DeWine signed HB 33 into law which included the Social Media Parental Notification Act as a part of the Ohio 2024 to 2025 fiscal year budget. This law requires that children and teens under 16 to get parental consent on a platform that allows content to be posted a on a public or semi-public profile. [5] The law was originally set to go into effect on January 15, 2024, ten days before the law was set to go in effect. NetChoice filed a lawsuit against the State of Ohio claiming that the law was violating constitutional rights and the First Amendment and that it would pose a risk to internet privacy, safety and security. [6] On January 8, 2024, an Ohio judge granted a temporary restraining order that stopped the law from going into effect on January 15. The judge stated that "Foreclosing minors under sixteen from accessing all content on websites that the Act purports to cover, absent affirmative parental consent, is a breathtakingly blunt instrument for reducing social media’s harm to children.” [7] A hearing was held on February 7. The law remained suspended.

Controversy

In April 2024, The Intercept revealed that NetChoice had made donations in excess of $800,000 to organizations that went on to file amicus briefs in support of its arguments in multiple lawsuits, including a $450,000 contribution in 2022 to TechFreedom, a nonprofit think tank that later filed an amicus brief in support of NetChoice's argument in NetChoice v. Paxton. [8]

Related Research Articles

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), was a seminal First Amendment ruling at the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overturned a Florida state law that required newspapers to offer equal space to political candidates who wished to respond to election-related editorials or endorsements. That law was found to be an unconstitutional restriction of freedom of the press under the First Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Child Online Protection Act</span> Former U.S. law to protect minors from certain material on the Internet

The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was a law in the United States of America, passed in 1998 with the declared purpose of restricting access by minors to any material defined as harmful to such minors on the Internet. The law, however, never took effect, as three separate rounds of litigation led to a permanent injunction against the law in 2009.

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a facial challenge to New Hampshire's parental notification abortion law. The First Circuit had ruled that the law was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement was proper. The Supreme Court vacated this judgment and remanded the case, but avoided a substantive ruling on the challenged law or a reconsideration of prior Supreme Court abortion precedent. Instead, the Court only addressed the issue of remedy, holding that invalidating a statute in its entirety "is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002), followed by 542 U.S. 656 (2004), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, ruling that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States found that an ordinance prohibiting the posting of "for sale" and "sold" signs on real estate within the town violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protections for commercial speech.

United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003), was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Congress has the authority to require public schools and libraries receiving E-Rate discounts to install web filtering software as a condition of receiving federal funding. In a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that public school and library usage of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment free speech rights and that the Children's Internet Protection Act is not unconstitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 230</span> US federal law on website liability

Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Robert Lewis Hinkle is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abortion law in the United States by state</span> Termination of pregnancy in states of the United States

The legality of abortion in the United States and the various restrictions imposed on the procedure vary significantly depending on the laws of each state or other jurisdiction. Some states prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy with few exceptions, others permit it up to a certain point in a woman's pregnancy, while others allow abortion throughout a woman's pregnancy. In states where abortion is legal, several classes of restrictions on the procedure may exist, such as parental consent or notification laws, requirements that patients be shown an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion, mandatory waiting periods, and counseling requirements.

<i>American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland</i>

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, 560 F.3d 443, is a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals involving a constitutional challenge—both facially and as-applied to internet communications—to an Ohio statute prohibiting the dissemination or display to juveniles of certain sexually-explicit materials or performances. The Sixth Circuit panel declined to resolve the constitutional issue but, instead, certified two questions to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the statute. The Ohio Supreme Court answered both questions affirmatively and placed a narrowing construction on the statute. Since the Ohio Supreme Court's decision, the Sixth Circuit has not reheard the case.

In Brenner v. Scott and its companion case, Grimsley v. Scott, a U.S. district court found Florida's constitutional and statutory same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. On August 21, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents that state from enforcing its bans and then stayed its injunction until stays are lifted in the three same-sex marriage cases then petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court–Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen–and for 91 days thereafter. When the district court's preliminary injunction took effect on January 6, 2015, enforcement of Florida's bans on same-sex marriage ended.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), sometimes called Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, was a planned United States immigration policy to grant deferred action status to certain undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States since 2010 and have children who are either American citizens or lawful permanent residents. It was prevented from going into effect. Deferred action would not be legal status but would come with a three-year renewable work permit and exemption from deportation. DAPA was a presidential executive action, not a law passed by Congress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States</span> Constitutional issue United States ;aw

The constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States has been challenged on a number of state and federal constitutional grounds. While the Supreme Court of the United States has twice upheld sex offender registration laws, in 2015 it vacated a requirement that an offender submit to lifetime ankle-bracelet monitoring, finding it was a Fourth Amendment search that was later ruled constitutionally unreasonable by the state court.

<i>The Babylon Bee</i> Satirical website

The Babylon Bee is a conservative Christian news satire website that publishes satirical articles on topics including religion, politics, current events, and public figures. It has been referred to as a Christian or conservative version of The Onion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ashley Moody</span> Attorney General of Florida since 2019

Ashley Brooke Moody is an American attorney and politician serving as the Florida attorney general since January 2019. Moody previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney and a circuit court judge in Hillsborough County.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen and also known as NYSRPA II or Bruen to distinguish it from the 2020 case, is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of the 1911 Sullivan Act, a New York State law requiring applicants for a pistol concealed carry license to show "proper cause", or a special need distinguishable from that of the general public, in their application.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Texas House Bill 20</span>

An Act Relating to censorship of or certain other interference with digital expression, including expression on social media platforms or through electronic mail messages, also known as Texas House Bill 20 (HB20), is a Texas anti-deplatforming law enacted on September 9, 2021.

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton are pending United States Supreme Court cases related to protected speech under the First Amendment, content moderation by interactive service providers on the Internet under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and two state statutes passed in Florida and Texas that sought to limit this moderation. While originating with statutes in two different states, the Moody and Paxton cases are often discussed in tandem because the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to review them together.

The Social Media Parental Notification Act is a bill implemented by Ohio's governor that requires online companies to obtain parental consent in order for a minor under the age of 16 to use the platform.

References

  1. ↑ "NetChoice Cases Archives". NetChoice. Retrieved 2024-01-10.
  2. ↑ "Senate Bill 7072 (2021) - The Florida Senate". www.flsenate.gov. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  3. 1 2 "Moody v. NetChoice, LLC". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2024-01-06.
  4. ↑ "NetChoice v. Paxton, No. 21-51178 (5th Cir. 2022)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  5. ↑ LLP, Hunton Andrews Kurth (2023-09-26). "Ohio Governor Signs Social Media Parental Notification Act". Privacy & Information Security Law Blog. Retrieved 2024-01-10.
  6. ↑ Chavez, Krista (2024-01-05). "NetChoice v. Yost". NetChoice. Retrieved 2024-01-10.
  7. ↑ "Ohio's social media parental consent law temporarily blocked by judge". NBC4 WCMH-TV. 2024-01-09. Retrieved 2024-01-10.
  8. ↑ Musgrave, Shawn (2024-04-18). "The Gaping Hole in Supreme Court Rules for Tracking Links Between Litigants and Influence Groups". The Intercept . Archived from the original on 2024-04-18. Retrieved 2024-04-25.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.