And don't we recognize limits on the free speech of children in certain settings?
And don't we recognize limits on the free speech of children in certain settings?
NetChoice’s argument is persuasive. As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute the Act implicates social media companies’ First Amendment rights. 87 The speech at issue in this case— the speech social media companies engage in when they make decisions about how to construct and operate their platforms—is protected speech. 88 The Supreme Court has long held that “[a]n entity ‘exercis[ing] editorial discretion in the selection and presentation’ of content is ‘engage[d] in speech activity’” protected by the First Amendment.89 And this July, in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, the Court affirmed these First Amendment principles “do not go on leave when social media are involved.” 90 Indeed, the Court reasoned that in “making millions of . . . decisions each day” about “what third-party speech to display and how to display it,” social media companies “produce their own distinctive compilations of expression.”91 Regarding the more pressing question—whether the Act facially violates social media companies’ First Amendment rights—the probable answer is “yes.” As explained below,
With Bluesky / ATProto, this is no longer the case. They have also made the algo and moderation pluggable, so you have choice before you feel the need to move. It's actually even better because all the apps store your content in your atproto database, each user has a dedicated sqlite
We sure do. No "Bong hits 4 Jesus" at school-supervised events, for instance.
> Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick.
I'd appreciate it if any downvoters here wouldn't mind explaining their reasoning to me so that I may have a chance to address their concerns.