The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case
that could determine whether users can challenge
social media companies on free speech grounds.
While the case has nothing to do with social
media on its surface, it could have broader
implications for companies like Google, or
Facebook, and Twitter.
RT correspondent, Brigida Santos, joins me
now with the details.
Brigida, first, tell me about the issues at
the heart of this case.
What are we taking a look at that might have
a vast effect on social media?
On the surface, this case looks like a dispute
between a local cable station known as the
Manhattan Neighborhood Network, and two videographers
whose critical segment about the network was
banned from its airwaves, along with any of
their future work.
However, the case is actually much more important
than it appears because the videographers
are arguing that the network is a public entity
rather than a private company.
Now they say that because it works with the
local government to reach viewers, it has
to follow the rules of the first amendment's
state actor clause, which bans true public
entities from censoring citizens speech.
Now MNN is fighting the claims, and accusing
the videographers of twisting the facts.
They maintain that they are a private company,
which does give them the right to exercise
editorial control over the content that they
air.
So this is really about whether the operator
of a public access cable network will be considered
in the eyes of the law to be a state actor
that is subject to constitutional liability.
And they're also going to look at whether
the courts aired in their previous rulings
on this matter.
Well, what were those previous rulings?
I mean if I look at this case objectively,
the thing I come up with ... First of all,
not Google, or none of these social medias
operate without the infrastructure that was
built by taxpayers.
I don't know why everybody misses that.
Yes, they took the infrastructure that was
initially built, they added to it, they modified
it, but the initial structure was paid for
by taxpayers, by everybody watching this program
paid for it.
So there's at least a quasi-government relationship
here, and I wonder what the previous rulings
have been in that regard.
So this is where things get really interesting.
Now the videographers had previously lost
in a district court where the judge ruled
that MNN was not a state actor because only
two of its 13 board members were appointed
by the state of New York, rather than a majority
as outlined by precedent.
But, two out of three panel members at the
second circuit court of appeals later disagreed,
stating that when a local government contracts
to use private property for public expressive
activity, it does create a public forum, and
it does function as a state actor.
So we're going to see how this is going to
play out, but these are two different opinions
here.
So a broad ruling from the Supreme Court could
potentially open technology companies like
Google, Facebook, and Twitter, to their first
amendment lawsuits, which I really do believe
were way overdue for.
I mean we see right now, you've got social
media that's making decisions about even who
they're going to put up.
They're making decisions of what's acceptable
speech, and what's not acceptable speech.
It flies in the face of the first amendment.
And I'll tell you this, once this ruling comes
out, if it is one that I see provides the
vehicle, I will go after these companies myself
because I think what they're doing is extremely
dangerous.
I saw an article this week where a Christian
broadcast was taken off of the air.
Somebody made the decision to take them off
of the air because they were talking about
an abortion issue that they disagreed with.
I mean where does that stop.
So the first amendment test have got to take
place, but we got to get some rulings first.
I wonder, do you think it's likely that the
court is going to issue a ruling that restricts
social media, and what they're able to put
forward as far as making decisions in-house.
This is acceptable, this is not acceptable.
What do you think the courts going to do with
that.
Look, that's definitely a concern, and in
a petition on behalf of the network, the company's
lawyers wrote that the second circuits implications
are incredibly dangerous because the decision
will apply to areas outside the public access
televisions here.
And that they will reshape all state action
litigation moving forward, but we have this
question right now of when is corporate censorship
government censorship?
And that's ultimately what this is really
looking at.
Brigida, thanks for joining me.
Let's cover this story more going forward.
I think we might be able to get a break to
where we can actually go after some of these
social media companies, and I think it's long
overdue.
