Previous 4 / 4 Next

USCA Case #19-7030 Document #1844360 Filed: 05/27/2020 Page 4 of 4 -4Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. CIR. R. 41. PER CURIAM FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Freedom Watch v. Google

Case Law

Country

United States

Country Location

Latitude: 39.778231903243785

Longitude: -100.8801256788983

Country Location (linked Case Law): United States

Decision Date: May 27, 2020

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Dismissed

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgment in Favor of Defendant/ Acquittal

Keywords

Content Moderation
Content Regulation / Censorship

Judicial Body: Appellate Court

Court Name: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Case Number: No. 19-7030

Case Summary: The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed Freedom Watch’s appeal against the District Court’s decision which had dismissed its complaint alleging violation of the First Amendment, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. Freedom Watch had brought a complaint against major technology firms arguing that Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple intentionally and willfully conspired to suppress politically conservative content which resulted in a dramatic loss of its viewership and user engagement. The Appellate Court held that Freedom Watch’s claim concerning the defendants’ anti-competitive conduct was invalid as no agreement occurred between the platforms, the defendants were not ‘public accommodations’ within the ambit of DC’s anti-discrimination laws, and that the defendants were not quasi-state actors capable of being sued for First Amendment violations for suppression of speech. The Court noted that general allegations of conspiracy to suppress speech without concrete facts was insufficient to warrant a judgment in favour of the appellants’.

On July 6, 2020 Freedom Watch applied to have the case heard en banc arguing that that because there are questions of “exceptional importance” at stake, the case must be reheard by all 11 judges, rather than a panel of just three, and via oral argument over Zoom or Skype. On August 5, 2020 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc and dismissed as moot the request for oral argument.

Case Significance: The Freedom Watch decision expands expression. This judgment is one of the many cases recently which has reiterated that tech platforms and social networking websites’ do not engage in suppression of speech while exercising editorial discretion in censoring content. While the District Court placed adequate concern in this case over selective censorship by platforms and its contradiction to the American tradition of free speech, it nevertheless declared that such claims are not actionable unless perpetrated by state actors. The Court’s judgment underlines the central role that the Internet plays in facilitating the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in modern societies.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Analysis

Case Law on Content Moderation and Freedom of Expression

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Jul 19, 2024

Primary Documents

Judgment
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Freedom Watch v. Google

Primary Documents

Notifications