Swordsmyth
10-17-2018, 07:33 PM
Facebook and the other social-media giants are under fire for censoring not just conservatives but also liberals, and now a case is before the U.S. Supreme Court that might alter how those companies operate.
Are they private companies that can censor their users? Or are they more like public utilities that can be regulated, and does their connection to government open them to First Amendment claims?
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck might settle it.
The Case
The case involves Manhattan Neighborhood Network (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/manhattan-community-access-corp-v-halleck/), a public-access channel in New York. MNN killed a video because it contained scatological language that, MNN said, trespassed its policies. The video’s producers, citing the First Amendment, sued. Because MNN acted for the state, it could not refuse to broadcast the video.
Reported Constitution Daily (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/supreme-court-takes-public-access-tv-case-with-bigger-implications), “the case made its way through the legal system until a divided three-judge Second Circuit Appeals panel ruled in favor of the producers. Although MNN was a privately owned non-profit that operated the TV channel, two judges believed its programming represented a public forum protected by the First Amendment.”
MNN’s brief made clear what is at stake: “If the minimal nexus MNN has to the government is sufficient to find state action, then entities such as Time Warner, Facebook, Twitter, and National Public Radio, all of which have similar (though minimal) connections to government, should be concerned,” MNN said.
More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/30362-could-supreme-court-case-open-social-media-to-first-amendment-claims
Are they private companies that can censor their users? Or are they more like public utilities that can be regulated, and does their connection to government open them to First Amendment claims?
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck might settle it.
The Case
The case involves Manhattan Neighborhood Network (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/manhattan-community-access-corp-v-halleck/), a public-access channel in New York. MNN killed a video because it contained scatological language that, MNN said, trespassed its policies. The video’s producers, citing the First Amendment, sued. Because MNN acted for the state, it could not refuse to broadcast the video.
Reported Constitution Daily (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/supreme-court-takes-public-access-tv-case-with-bigger-implications), “the case made its way through the legal system until a divided three-judge Second Circuit Appeals panel ruled in favor of the producers. Although MNN was a privately owned non-profit that operated the TV channel, two judges believed its programming represented a public forum protected by the First Amendment.”
MNN’s brief made clear what is at stake: “If the minimal nexus MNN has to the government is sufficient to find state action, then entities such as Time Warner, Facebook, Twitter, and National Public Radio, all of which have similar (though minimal) connections to government, should be concerned,” MNN said.
More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/30362-could-supreme-court-case-open-social-media-to-first-amendment-claims