Précédent 14 / 14 Next

Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 34 Filed 01/21/21 Page 14 of 14 1 2 3 For these and the remaining reasons articulated above, Parler’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. Dated this 21st day of January, 2021. A 4 5 Barbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

Parler v. Amazon Web Services

Case Law

Country

United States

Country Location

Latitude: 39.778231903243785

Longitude: -100.8801256788983

Country Location (Lié Case Law): United States

Decision Date: 21 janv. 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 juil. 2024

Documents principaux

Judgment
English
Télécharger Vue

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

Parler v. Amazon Web Services

Documents principaux

Notifications