Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their users
Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine
whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their
users
·
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that
could determine whether users can challenge social media companies on free
speech grounds.
·
The case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v.
Halleck, No. 17-702, centers on whether a private operator of a public access
television network is considered a state actor which can be sued for First
Amendment violations.
·
The case could have broader implications for
social media and other media outlets. In particular, a broad ruling from the
high court could open the country's largest technology companies up to First
Amendment lawsuits.
By Tucker Higgins October 16, 2018 CNBC.com
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could
determine whether users can challenge social media companies on free speech
grounds.
The case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck,
No. 17-702, centers on whether a private operator of a public access television
network is considered a state actor, which can be sued for First Amendment
violations.
The case could have broader implications for social media
and other media outlets. In particular, a broad ruling from the high court
could open the country's largest technology companies up to First Amendment
lawsuits.
That could shape the ability of companies like Facebook,
Twitter and Alphabet's Google to control the content on their platforms as
lawmakers clamor for more regulation and activists on the left and right spar
over issues related to censorship and harassment.
The Supreme Court accepted the case on Friday. It is the
first case taken by a reconstituted high court after Justice Brett Kavanaugh's
confirmation earlier this month.
On its face, the case has nothing to do with social media
at all. Rather, the facts of the case concern public access television, and two
producers who claim they were punished for expressing their political views.
The producers, DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Melendez, say that Manhattan
Neighborhood Network suspended them for expressing views that were critical of
the network.
In making the argument to the justices that the case was
worthy of review, attorneys for MNN said the court could use the case to
resolve a lingering dispute over the power of social media companies to
regulate the content on their platforms.
While the First Amendment is meant to protect citizens
against government attempts to limit speech, there are certain situations in
which private companies can be subject to First Amendment liability. Attorneys
for MNN have made the case that social media companies are clearly not
government actors. But in raising the question, they have provided the Supreme
Court an opportunity to weigh in.
"We stand at a moment when the very issue at the
heart of this case—the interplay between private entities, nontraditional
media, and the First Amendment—has been playing out in the courts, in other
branches of government, and in the media itself," attorneys for MNN wrote
in their final plea to the justices to take up the case.
A ruling against MNN on the broad question it has asked
the court to consider could open social media companies to First Amendment
suits, which would force them to limit the actions they take to control the
content on their platforms.
The court could also rule more narrowly against MNN in a
way that does not impact the companies.
The case is likely to get extra attention as it moves
forward given Republican lawmakers' increasing attacks against social media
companies for perceived partisanship. Those attacks have raised the specter
that the court, which has served as a bulwark for conservative expression,
could step in.
Some observers have expressed caution, saying that the
justices are unlikely to rule in a way that could substantially impact social
media companies.
Michael Pachter, a former tax attorney who covers Twitter
as an analyst at Wedbush Securities, said he thought it was "extremely
unlikely" that the court will issue a ruling that hamstrings social media
companies, particularly given the court's deference to business interests.
If the court does place serious limits on how the
companies can restrict the speech on their platforms, he said, it would make
the networks more hostile, alienating their users and advertisers.
"[Twitter] is an uncivil place as it is,"
Pachter said. "But it will become less civil."
Courts in California and New Jersey have weighed in on
the issue, finding that social media companies don't constitute state actors
subject to First Amendment liability. A federal judge in New York ruled in May
that the First Amendment protected users interacting with parts of Twitter,
including the president's feed. But that ruling did not apply to Twitter as a
whole.
The Supreme Court addressed a related issue in June 2017.
In Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194, the court struck down a state law
that prohibited sex offenders from accessing social media sites. In his opinion
for the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired over the summer, referred
to social media sites as a "modern public square." But the court's
decision left important questions about what exactly that meant up in the air.
Conservatives allege censorship
While the justices tend to describe themselves as being
apolitical, the court of Chief Justice John Roberts has shown a distinct
preference for speech cases that concern conservative ideology, according to an
empirical analysis conducted by researchers affiliated with Washington
University in St. Louis and the University of Michigan.
The analysis found that the justices on the court
appointed by Republican presidents sided with conservative speech nearly 70
percent of the time.
"More than any other modern Court, the Roberts Court
has trained its sights on speech promoting conservative values," the
authors found.
Polls show that both Democrats and Republicans believe
that social media companies censor their users, however, the issue swings
heavily conservative. Eighty-five percent of Republicans believe that social
media companies censor speech the companies find objectionable, compared with
62 percent of Democrats, according to a June survey conducted by the Pew
Research Center.
The survey also found that 4 in 10 Americans believe that
the companies favor liberal speech, versus just 1 in 10 who believes the
companies favor conservative speech.
In August, President Donald Trump blasted Google for
allegedly suppressing conservative speech. In a post on Twitter, Trump wrote
that "they are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very
serious situation-will be addressed!"
Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., the conservative chairman of
the House Intelligence Committee, in July accused Twitter of censorship and
threatened legal action against the company.
Perhaps most dramatically, Facebook, YouTube, Apple and
the music platform Spotify removed content from right-wing conspiracy theorist
and provocateur Alex Jones in August, accusing the talk show host of violating
their terms of service. Indeed, MNN cited Jones's removal in a legal brief,
saying it was an example of the heightened attention to the issue of First
Amendment rights online.
The major social media companies, which either did not
respond or declined to comment to CNBC, have said they do not censor speech
based on political ideology.
In August, as the uproar from conservatives reached a
fever pitch, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey called into the radio show hosted by
conservative commentator Sean Hannity.
"We do not shadow ban according to political ideology
or viewpoint or content. Period," Dorsey said at the time.
For its part, Google released a statement saying that its
search feature "is not used to set a political agenda and we don't bias
our results toward any political ideology."
During an April hearing before the Senate's Commerce and
Judiciary Committees, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was grilled by Sen. Ted
Cruz, R-Texas, about whether Facebook considered itself a "neutral public
forum."
"There are a great many Americans who I think are
deeply concerned that that Facebook and other tech companies are engaged in a
pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship," Cruz said.
In response, Zuckerberg said that Facebook is a
"platform for all ideas."
-- CNBC's Sara Salinas contributed to this report.
Comments
Post a Comment