David Greene

@davidgreene.bsky.social

468

Posts

Civil Liberties Dir. @EFF, 1st Amdt prof @ USF, ex-SFSU. NOT any of the other David Greenes, like the ex-NPR host, the ex-UGA QB, or the 1 who directed Grease. Posts r mine only, so hands off.

Posts Replies Media

Reposted by

David Greene

heads up - lots of CA 1A action tomorrow!

Tomorrow is (another) internet law day at the Ninth Circuit, with the court hearing arguments California's Age Appropriate Design Code (Netchoice v Bonta) and CA's social media reporting law (X v Bonta). For Our amicus briefs in each case: www.eff.org/deeplinks/20... www.eff.org/deeplinks/20...

EFF Urges Ninth Circuit to Reinstate X’s Legal Challenge towww.eff.org The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) urged a federal appeals court to reinstate X’s lawsuit challenging a California law that forces social media companies to file reports to the state about

ICYMI yesterday: my thoughts on the Netchoice decisions, why the opinion is an important First amendment victory, and why the Court's shoutout to competition law as an available regulatory scheme deserves special attention www.eff.org/deeplinks/20...

Platforms Have First Amendment Right to Curate Speech, As We’ve Longwww.eff.org Social media platforms, at least in their most common form, have a First Amendment right to curate the third-party speech they select for and recommend to their users, and the government’s ability to

Join us! it's going to be a blast.

Will recent U.S. Supreme Court opinions change your rights online? Join @davidgreene.bsky.social, @mmasnick.bsky.social, and @daphnek.bsky.social for "The U.S. Supreme Court Takes on the Internet" streaming live on Thursday, July 18 at 10:00 AM PT. eff.org/livestream-scotus

Reposted by

David Greene

Fomenting panic on the U.S.-Mexico border has created, not just a massive surveillance infrastructure, but also billions of dollars for technology vendors. @eff.org has compiled a public dataset of companies that are selling equipment to the DHS.

Hundreds of Tech Companies Want to Cash In on Homeland Securitywww.eff.org The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today has released a near-comprehensive dataset of the vendors who supply or market the technology for the U.S. government’s increasingly AI-powered homeland

Reposted by

David Greene

Victory! Supreme Court correctly rules that social media platforms have First Amendment rights to curate and edit the speech of others they deliver to their users.

Finally put my thoughts down about the Supreme Court's decision in the Netchoice cases. It's a tremendously important decision on the First Amendment issues, and boy this Court does not like facial challenges to even blatantly unconstitutional laws. www.eff.org/deeplinks/20...

Reply to

Jeremy Littau

Jeremy you really need to read Monsters of Templeton (which, obliquely, explains why it is not a coincidence) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mon...

The Monsters of Templeton - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org

It's true! Listen in as I, @daphnek.bsky.social and @mmasnick.bsky.social opine about the Netchoice, Murthy, and maybe even Lindke cases. There will even be Q&A!

We are kicking off our livestream series on July 18 with a dive into the impact of recent U.S. Supreme Court opinions. Join David Greene, Mike Masnick, and Daphne Keller for "The U.S. Supreme Court Takes on the Internet" eff.org/livestream-scotus

Reposted by

David Greene

LAST CHANCE: Through EFF's 34th birthday on July 10, you can receive two rare gifts, be a member for just $20, and new recurring donations even get a free match! Join today: eff.org/summer

Not those parents rights! Florida school board now wants to depose a kid to confirm he wants to read a banned book because it's not enough that his mom wants him to have access to it, even tho the ban presupposes that kids have no right to make these decisions www.tallahassee.com/story/news/p...

Florida school board, sued for book bans, wants to take testimony of 7-year-old studentwww.tallahassee.com The Escambia County School Board says it "has the right to explore the claims and defenses in the case directly with the students."

Wherein I say "the NetChoice decision shows that platforms’ curation decisions are 'First Amendment protected speech, and it’s very, very difficult — if not impossible — for a state to regulate that process.'” www.theverge.com/24195235/sco...

The aftermath of the SCOTUS NetChoice rulingwww.theverge.com The new decision may affect kids online safety bills at the state and federal levels.

join me (plus special guests too)

Join EFF's Civil Liberties Director David Greene on July 18th for a livestream discussion about the U.S. Supreme Court's recent opinions on technology and civil liberties. eff.org/livestream-scotus

Reposted by

David Greene

I'm quoting this whole thread, but I mostly want to highlight David's point about how Alito (and, honestly, so many other people) doesn't see sex censorship as censorship.

Some thoughts on Alito's concurrence in the Netchoice cases in which he disagrees with the 5+ other justices who wrote that social media platforms have 1st Amendment rights to curate user speech (& he also disagrees with ME). His opinion is poorly reasoned and ahistorical. But 2 special points:

Reply to

Ari Cohn

and still writing the COMPLETE ANALYSIS

Reply to

Ari Cohn

and pair that with Alito who re-writes both Parler's community standards and the history of newsroom practices: bsky.app/profile/davi...

He displays the common fallacy of only seeing censorship he disagrees with & not seeing it if when he too would have censored. He cites to Parler as doing little content moderation. But Parler has 14 categories of "prohibited content." Sex censorship never counts. parler.com/community-gu...

2nd, Alito like many others before him, ahistoricallly lionizes traditional news media making it seem like every newspaper decision is a carefully crafted professional choice rather than "Quick! Find me a wire service story that fits in this space!" Maybe they should spend a few days in a newsroom.

Reposted by

David Greene

EFF has said time and again that age verification mandates are surveillance systems which undermine anonymity and privacy of all, don’t work as intended, and chill access to speech online. (1/4)

California Lawmakers Should Reject Mandatory Internet ID Checkswww.eff.org California lawmakers are debating an ill-advised bill that would require internet users to show their ID in order to look at sexually explicit content. EFF has sent a letter to California legislators

After choosing not to use Murthy v MO to clarify the line between permissible persuasion and impermissible coercion, the Supreme Court, unsurprisingly, denies cert in O'Handley v Weber, which would have presented that chance as well (though was also dodge-able on redressability as in Murthy)

One way to break down the Netchoice decisions from SCOTUS today: 5 votes for "algorithms" being virtue-neutral 3 votes for "algorithms" being pernicious 1 vote for still thinking about it

Because reading the various Netchoice opinions was not enough, the SD Miss just preliminarily enjoined Mississippi's age verification law (it was due to take effect today)

And, impressively, the court cites to the just-hours-before-issued Moody v Netchoice opinion to address any cocnerns about the facial challenge.

This is good: The court finds the age verification law not narrowly tailored to the state's interest in protecting children citing the existence of nonregulatory alternatives to assist parents, AND the fact that age verification schemes bruden adult internet use too.

Barrett, concurring, might be previewing how she would rule in a different case that might be on the Court's docket next term:

Reply to

Mike Masnick

"on vacation"

A longer analysis is int eh works. But here's our preliminary statement on the Netchoice decisions www.eff.org/deeplinks/20...

EFF's Statement on the Netchoice Decisionswww.eff.org The Supreme Court correctly found that social media platforms, like newspapers, bookstores, and art galleries before them, have First Amendment rights to curate and edit the speech of others they

*in the

How does the Netchoice decision affect transparency mandates? You have to look at footnote 3 where the Court seems to imply(?) that Zauderer (the less demanding compelled speech standard applied to noncontroversial, factual commercial speech) applies. What do you think @ericgoldman.bsky.social ?