|
||
|
First Amendment · Section 230 · AI Liability Nerdy Skynet! March 20, 2026 |
||
|
Coverage: 2026-03-17 through 2026-03-20 · 3 new developments this period |
||
|
||
| ▷ Defamation and Speech Torts | ||
|
Dr. Lana Foster v. Shannon King Eleventh Circuit · N/A (appears to be traditional defamation case, not platform-focused based on excerpt) Defamation and Speech Torts Appellate OpinionIssue: Whether statements made by defendant Shannon King about plaintiff Dr. Lana Foster constitute actionable defamation under applicable First Amendment standards. The Eleventh Circuit is reviewing a defamation claim brought by Dr. Lana Foster against Shannon King. Based on the limited excerpt provided (case caption and document header only), this appears to be an appellate opinion in a defamation dispute. The substantive analysis, parties' arguments, and the court's holding are not visible in the excerpt provided, making it impossible to determine whether this involves a technology platform, algorithmic amplification, Section 230 immunity, or any other issue within the newsletter's core scope. Why it matters: Cannot be determined from the excerpt provided. If the case involves defamatory statements published or amplified through a social media platform with Section 230 immunity argued by the platform, or if it involves AI-generated defamatory content, it would be highly significant. However, the excerpt does not contain sufficient information to make this determination. Human review of the full opinion is recommended to assess whether this is a traditional interpersonal defamation case (outside scope) or a platform/AI defamation case (within scope). |
||
|
||
|
Techdirt |
||
|
Brendan Carr Pretends To Be Tough, Demands Broadcasters Support Disastrous War Techdirt · 2026-03-17 CommentaryThis post analyzes FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's public threat to revoke broadcast licenses of news outlets that report critically on the Trump administration's Iran war, framing it as government jawboning designed to chill protected journalistic speech. The author argues Carr's threat—claiming broadcasters reporting "hoaxes and news distortions" risk losing licenses for failing to operate "in the public interest"—constitutes unconstitutional coercion under the First Amendment's prohibition on government officials pressuring private intermediaries to suppress disfavored speech, even though the FCC's actual enforcement authority is limited and any license revocation would face insurmountable legal challenges. The post connects this to the broader pattern of Trump administration officials threatening media companies with regulatory retaliation for critical coverage, applying the Bantam Books/Backpage/Murthy framework of distinguishing permissible government criticism from unconstitutional threats leveraging official power. Key point: FCC Chair Carr's public threat to deny broadcast license renewals to outlets reporting critically on government war policy represents potential First Amendment jawboning—using regulatory authority to coerce editorial compliance—though the threat's practical enforceability is limited by decades of First Amendment precedent protecting editorial independence. |
||
|
Tech Policy Press |
||
|
A Building Code for Digital Infrastructures Tech Policy Press · 2026-03-17 CommentaryThis post appears to propose a regulatory framework analogizing platform governance to building codes — suggesting that digital infrastructures should be subject to mandatory design standards similar to physical infrastructure safety requirements. If the post argues for government-mandated platform design requirements, it implicates the Moody v. NetChoice framework governing whether such mandates burden platforms' editorial discretion and expressive choices. The "building code" metaphor likely frames platforms as non-expressive infrastructure subject to common-carrier-style obligations, directly contesting the editorial-discretion doctrine established in Moody and raising questions about compelled design features as compelled speech. Key point: The post likely advocates for treating platform architecture as regulable infrastructure rather than protected editorial expression, engaging the core doctrinal tension between common-carrier and publisher models that Moody v. NetChoice addressed but left partially unresolved for non-expressive platform functions. |
||
|
Sources: CourtListener API ·
All 13 federal circuit RSS feeds ·
All 50 state supreme courts + intermediate appellate courts (8 states)
via Justia ·
Eric Goldman · Techdirt |