Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(134,123 posts)
Mon Mar 18, 2024, 05:19 AM Mar 2024

Supreme Court examines whether government can combat disinformation online

Source: NPR

March 18, 2024 5:00 AM ET


In a major case testing the role of the First Amendment in the internet age, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday hears arguments focused on the federal government's ability to combat what it sees as false, misleading or dangerous information online.

Last September, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the most conservative federal appeals court in the U.S., issued a broad ruling that barred key government officials from contacts with social media companies.

Among the personnel targeted in the order were officials at the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Office of the Surgeon General, the FBI and an important cybersecurity agency.

The appeals court said that individuals at those agencies likely violated the First Amendment by seeking to coerce social media platforms into moderating or changing their content about COVID-19, foreign interference in elections and even Hunter Biden's laptop. The Supreme Court has put that ruling on hold while it examines the tricky issues in the case.

Read more: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/18/1238122337/supreme-court-social-media-disinformation-first-amendment

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court examines whether government can combat disinformation online (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Mar 2024 OP
How I understand it Roy Rolling Mar 2024 #1
This GOP SCOTUS will choose lies over truth any day of the week /nt bucolic_frolic Mar 2024 #2
This should be a no-brainer, but is seems like up is down with this SC. padah513 Mar 2024 #3
The SC trying to figure out how to make the truth illegal. Irish_Dem Mar 2024 #4
there is a very thin line melm00se Mar 2024 #5
"You want that power given to a Trump political hack?" BumRushDaShow Mar 2024 #6
Knew that this was going to come up melm00se Mar 2024 #9
Let's address this BumRushDaShow Mar 2024 #11
Slippery slope. zanana1 Mar 2024 #7
I agree, but if we're not careful, 30% of Americans will be drinking bleach and putting light bulbs up their butts Scrivener7 Mar 2024 #8
They shouldn't be in the content business. melm00se Mar 2024 #10
Can Government Require Labels and Warning? If not, then FDA labeling requirements... TomCADem Mar 2024 #12

Roy Rolling

(7,038 posts)
1. How I understand it
Mon Mar 18, 2024, 05:31 AM
Mar 2024

A government like Putin’s Russia can operate on social media if they masquerade as a human. On Twitter, Musk welcomes trolls as long as they’re foreign and not U.S. government trolls.

Especially if that foreign oligarch government chips in some of the $44 billion purchase price.

melm00se

(5,019 posts)
5. there is a very thin line
Mon Mar 18, 2024, 10:29 AM
Mar 2024

between disinformation and misinformation.

Granting the power and ability to censor one and allow the other to a government (political entity) is one of the underlying reasons for the 1st Amendment.

The terrifying part is that once people would begin to accept government actions, it would be no big thing to slip in disinformation that benefits the state. After all, they are there to combat disinformation so what they add must be true and what they delete must be false.

You want that power given to a Trump political hack?

BumRushDaShow

(134,123 posts)
6. "You want that power given to a Trump political hack?"
Mon Mar 18, 2024, 10:39 AM
Mar 2024

Part of this is why there was a "Fairness Doctrine" that Raygun got rid of.

There should be a robust debate, with verifiable evidence allowed, to present "the facts" (and not Conway's "Alternate Facts" ).

melm00se

(5,019 posts)
9. Knew that this was going to come up
Mon Mar 18, 2024, 11:07 AM
Mar 2024

it always does.

The Fairness Doctrine is not some magical pixie dust that makes the truth materialize out of nowhere.

Its constitutional underpinnings (scarcity of the broadcast spectrum and the FCC's licensing power) have pretty much gone the way of the dodo.

Honestly, how much of your information comes from over the air, FCC licensed sources?

If you are like most people, you get your information from the web or cable outlets both of which are beyond the FCC's regulatory power and very little from the three major broadcast networks.

As I mentioned earlier, the scarcity argument is no longer valid. Back then, you had TV networks ABC, NBC, CBS and later Fox (not the news network but the entertainment side) and a spread of radio stations.

By the 1980s, cable penetrated and provided new sources (CNN and its ilk) and then came the internet which provides a consumer virtually unlimited sources. These technological changes wiped out the constitutional justification for its existence,

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, especially if it was expanded beyond the FCC's mandate, would draw innumerable 1st amendment claims which would more than likely be upheld and the expanded Fairness Doctrine would die.

I would like you to put on your "look into the future" goggles:

How would you like to see a place like DU to be required to have opposing (rightwing conservative) viewpoints? Freepers would have to be accepted, their postings accepted and not tombstoned.

Lots of fun, huh?

Anecdotally, I worked in radio during the waning days of the Fairness Doctrine. You might remember that radio stations were mostly music (AM or FM, it didn't matter). There was a reason for that: Stations were not obligated to carry any news so, to avoid FD complaints, they didn't. They addressed their public interest obligations by putting religious shows and noncontroversial public affairs program recounting the city/town/county legislature actions and, in certain areas, providing ethnic programming (we did Polka music with a Polish speaker).


BumRushDaShow

(134,123 posts)
11. Let's address this
Mon Mar 18, 2024, 11:35 AM
Mar 2024
Knew that this was going to come up it always does.

The Fairness Doctrine is not some magical pixie dust that makes the truth materialize out of nowhere.

Its constitutional underpinnings (scarcity of the broadcast spectrum and the FCC's licensing power) have pretty much gone the way of the dodo.

Honestly, how much of your information comes from over the air, FCC licensed sources?

If you are like most people, you get your information from the web or cable outlets both of which are beyond the FCC's regulatory power and very little from the three major broadcast networks.

As I mentioned earlier, the scarcity argument is no longer valid. Back then, you had TV networks ABC, NBC, CBS and later Fox (not the news network but the entertainment side) and a spread of radio stations.

By the 1980s, cable penetrated and provided new sources (CNN and its ilk) and then came the internet which provides a consumer virtually unlimited sources. These technological changes wiped out the constitutional justification for its existence,

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, especially if it was expanded beyond the FCC's mandate, would draw innumerable 1st amendment claims which would more than likely be upheld and the expanded Fairness Doctrine would die.


You DO REALIZE that laws/statutes can be changed/adapted right?

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was one such piece of legislation that sought to update the old radio/telephone-based communication to include newer technology and opened up the "web" for "commercial use" (where previously it was limited to federal people like ME (before I retired) with .gov access (along with the .mil & .edu).

I would like you to put on your "look into the future" goggles:


No you need to put on your "way back" goggles and compare "back then" to "now" and realize that "nothing is set in stone" and "laws/rules/regulations" CAN CHANGE.

How would you like to see a place like DU to be required to have opposing (rightwing conservative) viewpoints? Freepers would have to be accepted, their postings accepted and not tombstoned.

Lots of fun, huh?


The First Amendment itself dealt with "petitioning the government for redress". FULL STOP.

How that "happens" is the debate here - whether you go out and protest with a sign or appear on a "government-licensed" outlet.

Anecdotally, I worked in radio during the waning days of the Fairness Doctrine. You might remember that radio stations were mostly music (AM or FM, it didn't matter). There was a reason for that: Stations were not obligated to carry any news so, to avoid FD complaints, they didn't. They addressed their public interest obligations by putting religious shows and noncontroversial public affairs program recounting the city/town/county legislature actions and, in certain areas, providing ethnic programming (we did Polka music with a Polish speaker).


"Anecdotally", I worked at my college radio station (FM 1000W) the 4 years (late '70s - early '80s) I was there and went through the process to obtain what was then dubbed a "Third Class Radiotelephone Operator's Permit" so that I could operate the (old/analog) board and shut down/turn on the station transmitter as needed (as well as maintain the station log for the FCC). While in college I *did * have computer/mainframe/internet access. In addition, my father was a programmer for the VA (pre-Department creation when it was called the "Veteran's Administration" ) where he was programming in COBOL (for the VA Benefits checks), from the mid -'50s to the mid-'70s (when he passed away).

Sometimes people know a bit more than you think and you know what they say about one who might ASSUME.

Scrivener7

(51,438 posts)
8. I agree, but if we're not careful, 30% of Americans will be drinking bleach and putting light bulbs up their butts
Mon Mar 18, 2024, 11:00 AM
Mar 2024

when the next pandemic comes.

At least disinformation on public health issues should be able to be shut down. I don't know where the line is, but in this day and age, healthcare disinformation is yelling "fire" in the movie theater on steroids.

TomCADem

(17,491 posts)
12. Can Government Require Labels and Warning? If not, then FDA labeling requirements...
Mon Mar 18, 2024, 11:36 AM
Mar 2024

...are then suspect.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court examines wh...