Précédent 1 / 67 Next

USCA11 Case: 21-12355 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 1 of 67 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-12355 ____________________ NETCHOICE, LLC, d.b.a. NetChoice, COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, d.b.a. CCIA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, in their official capacity, JONI ALEXIS POITIER, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Florida Elections Commission, JASON TODD ALLEN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

NetChoice v. Attorney General, State of Florida

Case Law

Country

United States

Country Location

Latitude: 39.778231903243785

Longitude: -100.8801256788983

Country Location (Lié Case Law): United States

Decision Date: 23 mai 2022

Case Status: In progress

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Injunction or Order Granted

Keywords

Content Moderation

Judicial Body: Appellate Court

Court Name: The United States Court of Appeals

Case Number: 34 F.4th 1196

Case Summary: The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted a preliminary injunction in respect of specific provisions of a Florida Senate Bill which sought to “combat the ‘biased silencing’ of ‘our freedom of speech as conservatives … by the “big tech” oligarchs in Silicon Valley’.” [p. 7] A trade association representing the big social-media platforms approached the courts, seeking an injunction on the enactment of the Bill, arguing that the law’s restrictions on the platforms’ content moderation and disclosure activities violated their right to free speech under the US Constitution’s First Amendment. The lower court granted the broad injunction. On appeal, the Court accepted that the majority of the contentious provisions were “substantially likely” to be unconstitutional, and so would meet the standards for a preliminary injunction. Following an analysis of all the impugned provisions, the Court declared that specific provisions requiring disclosure from the platforms were likely to be constitutional and so did not grant the injunction in respect of the enactment of those provisions. The Court stressed that social-media platforms engage in protected speech when moderating the content on their platform, and that, as private companies, are entitled to curate a specific type of content and community for their platform.

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

Related Caselaw (self)

United States

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: 10 mai 2024

Documents principaux

Netchoice-v-Atty-General.pdf
English
Télécharger Vue

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

NetChoice v. Attorney General, State of Florida

Documents principaux

Notifications