CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

- Colección
- Registrarse

ordenado por

Fecha de creación

60 relaciones, 59 Entidades

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

● ● ●

Uwazi es desarrollado por
CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law
Colección
Acceder

Información
60relaciones

Parler v. Amazon Web Services

Case Law

Consejos de búsqueda

Buscar texto

Type something in the search box to get some results.

Tabla de Contenidos

Sin Tabla de Contenidos

Sin descripción de Tabla de Contenidos

Parler v. Amazon Web Services

Case Law

Country

United States

Country Location

Latitud: 39.778231903243785

Longitud: -100.8801256788983

Country Location (vinculado Case Law): United States

Decision Date: 21 ene 2021

Case Status: In progress

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Denied

Keywords

Content Moderation
Digital Rights
Filtering and Blocking
Indecency / Obscenity
Social Media

Judicial Body: First Instance Court

Court Name: District Court in Seattle

Case Number: 2:21-cv-0031-BJR

Case Summary: A District Court in Seattle, the United States dismissed a social media platform’s application for a preliminary injunction to prevent its web hosting service suspending those services. After the riots at the US Capitol in January 2021, the web hosting service informed the social media platform that it had breached the service level agreement and acceptable use policy by not taking action against posts on the platform which incited violence. The social media platform then approached the Court, arguing that by suspending the service the web hosting service had, inter alia, breached the contract between them. The Court held that the social media platform had failed to meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction, and emphasized that it was in the public interest to not privilege abusive and harmful social media content over contractual obligations.

Case Significance: This case reflects the growing concern over Big Tech’s ability to monitor and police speech – while remaining untouched by the constitutional protections afforded to persons under the First Amendment as they are private companies – and the conflict between free speech and the policing of disinformation and incitement. It also highlights the balance Courts must perform when faced with issues related to free speech but which are not necessarily protected under the First Amendment. Although the judgment does not address whether inflammatory rhetoric should be protected, the Court does state that when the speech promotes or causes violence it is permissible to constrain that speech.

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

Related Analysis

Case Law on Content Moderation and Freedom of Expression

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 19 jul 2024

Documentos primarios

Judgment
English
Descargar Ver

Sin referencias

References are parts of this document related with other documents and entities.

Country1
- Country1
Related Analysis1
- Analysis1
No existe etiqueta1
- Analysis1
Related Case Law57
- Case Law57

Crear Referencia

Seleccionar tipo de relación

Original Law Cited
Related Translation
Related Media Source
Country
Related Law
Related Regulations
Related Secondary Law
Related Amendments
Related Draft Amendments
Related Case Law
Related Analysis

Consejos de búsqueda

Añadir entidades / documentos

Consejos de búsqueda

Notificaciones

Estás al día

La actividad nueva se mostrará aquí.