On today’s internet, the boundaries of acceptable speech are set by a few massive platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and a handful of others. If those companies find something unacceptable, it can’t travel far — a restriction that’s had a massive impact for everyone from copyright violators to sex workers. At the same time, vile content that doesn’t violate platform rules can find shockingly broad audiences, leading to a chilling rise in white nationalism and violent misogyny online. After years of outcry, platforms have grown more willing to ban the worst actors online, but each ban comes with a new political fight, and companies are slow to respond in the best of circumstances. As gleeful disinformation figures like Alex Jones gain power — and the sheer scale of these platforms begins to overwhelm moderation efforts — the problems have only gotten uglier and harder to ignore. At the same time, the hard questions of moderation are only getting harder.
Earlier this week, the White House tried to pressure the Associated Press into referring to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” in its coverage; the AP said the move “plainly violates the First Amendment,” noting that Donald Trump doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally rename the body of water.
Nieman Lab asked major newsrooms what language they’d use. Most are sticking with Gulf of Mexico, unlike tech companies.
Lawyers representing President Trump, former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and what is now X moved to dismiss Trump’s pending case before the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, reports Bloomberg.
He was appealing the dismissal of a lawsuit that accused Twitter, which is now owned by DOGE head Elon Musk, of violating the First Amendment when it banned his account in 2021.
President Donald Trump now claims that because of the network’s 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, “significant viewership was improperly diverted to Defendants’ media platforms, resulting in lower consumer engagement, advertising revenues, and profits by TMTG and President Trump’s other media holdings.” reports Deadline.
The amended suit also doubles its damages claim to $20 billion. CBS parent company Paramount Global has reportedly been considering settling, rather than fighting, the lawsuit.
It got the facts right but the story wrong.
Last fall, Megan Garcia sued Character.AI, its founders, and Google over the death by suicide of her 14-year-old son, who had chatted continuously with its bots, including just before his death. In December, the firm added safety measures aimed at teens and concerns over addiction.
TechCrunch reports that Character.ai has filed a motion to dismiss the case, which you can read in full here.
He’s reinstated three complaints against broadcasters that former chair Jessica Rosenworcel dismissed as attempts to influence news coverage:
Rosenworcel said the commission was rejecting complaints that “seek to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment”. Then, on Wednesday, the FCC said in a series of orders the complaints had been dismissed “prematurely based on an insufficient investigatory record”.
A fourth complaint, against a Fox station, has not been reinstated.
The “Repeal the TikTok Ban Act,” introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), would undo the forced divestiture law. Unlike President Donald Trump’s executive order or his proposal for the US to own 50 percent of the app, this would be the most legally-sound way to overturn the ban — but it’s still likely a long shot to pass.
Nothing says protecting the First Amendment like Elon Musk’s congressional DOGE liaison threatening reporters for describing a physical gesture. Musk has previously used a friendly judge in Texas to fight being associated with the far right. But when you’ve got a White House office and a congressional subcommittee to fight your battles, who needs lawsuits?
But President Donald Trump has issued one anyway:
The previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.
We don’t know exactly what they discussed, but the US President-elect says it was a “very good” call. Until we hear otherwise from the Supreme Court or President Joe Biden, the TikTok ban is set to take effect on January 19th — one day before Trump’s inauguration. “It is my expectation that we will solve many problems together, and starting immediately,” says Trump.
[Truth Social]
The Supreme Court’s site has added text saying it “may announce opinions” at 10AM ET tomorrow. I’m going to be furious if we don’t find out the fate of TikTok two days before the scheduled ban. I will also grudgingly respect the top-tier troll effort.
Everyone (including yes, The Verge) is watching for a Supreme Court decision on the TikTok ban today, but there’s another big oral argument being heard at 10AM ET: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which could reset a 21-year-old precedent effectively barring strict online age verification and decide the fate of numerous state laws. Audio, as usual, will be streamed on the Supreme Court site.
Tiffany Cianci was finishing a TikTok live stream to 70,000 people when we met in the elevator after a press conference. She was in good spirits even after camping out in her van outside the Supreme Court beginning at 2 AM. “I don’t see it as hopeless right now, and I don’t think that they’ve already decided,” she says. Creator and petitioner Tim Martin also feels “very excited and optimistic” after today’s oral arguments, saying their attorneys “did an incredible job.”
Legal writer Eric Goldman pens his expert take on the state of internet law going into the new year, including generative AI, online speech, and Section 230:
Section 230 is on the extinction watch list in 2025. I will be shocked if it survives to see 2026. If you don’t already have a Section 230 tattoo, now is probably not the time to get one.
The silver lining is that I have a “no monuments to the living” tattoo policy, so apparently it’s exactly the right time.
[Technology & Marketing Law Blog]
TikTok lawyer Noel Francisco comes back for a brief rebuttal, and he’s pushing the court to stay the law even without making a determination about whether TikTok could succeed. This, obviously, would push its enforcement into the domain of President-elect Donald Trump, who has promised to save the app.
Prelogar says the court shouldn’t buy the argument that TikTok hasn’t been given enough time to sell, pointing to Musk’s acquisition of Twitter as a sign of how quickly deals can go through.
In response to Justice Kavanaugh, Prelogar says Congress was clearly and “sincerely” motivated by data privacy concerns, and even if you discount the questions about propaganda and manipulation, that’s enough to make the law stand up. She says TikTok is totally off-base in claiming that motivation is “tainted” if the propaganda-related arguments don’t hold up.
