Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bill's avatar

I see these internet content moderation cases as the second step in the process by conservative justices. Earlier this year in the Twitter v Taamneh case, the court ruled that the internet co.’s did have liability protection from 3rd party content. This was an important step in the actual goal which was to limit the scope of content moderation that these companies can perform.

With Twitter v Taamneh, the justices eliminated one of the potential justifications for content moderation. It’s hard for them to say that companies can’t moderate content if they are at risk of being sued.

I would expect we’ll see an ongoing push in this and future cases to limit the moderation of political and other forms of non-criminal / non-violent content.

Expand full comment
Reginald's avatar

This is the first article of yours that I've read. I appreciate the thorough summary. The legal terms you've used were approachable by a layman such as myself, as well I find that the points on which you've touched were mostly easy to follow. Readability 8/10

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts