1st Amendment

According to AdImpact, an advertising analytics firm that tracks political advertising, projects a record $10.2 billion will be spent across all races in 2024. This would be an over 13% increase from the $9.02 billion spent in the 2020 elections. With polls indicating a very close Presidential election, the biggest benefactors of this ad spending largesse are the local television stations in seven swing states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona and Nevada.

A Florida judge extended a temporary restraining order until after the election that blocks the state government from threatening to take legal action against television stations over pro-abortion ads. 

Floridians Protecting Freedom, the group behind the Amendment 4 Right to Abortion Initiative to enshrine abortion in the state constitution, which is on the ballot on Election Day, filed a lawsuit earlier this month against Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and former health department counsel John Wilson, following threats from...

Those of us who defend freedom of speech have unfortunately become used to hysterical headlines from the New York Times decrying the problem of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment was written in the 18th century with the noble and vitally important goal of ensuring robust political debate and a free press. For much of American history, First Amendment cases involving speech typically concerned political dissenters, religious outcasts, intrepid journalists and others whose ability to express their views was threatened by a powerful and sometimes overbearing state. The First Amendment was a tool that helped the underdog.

The Supreme Court handed a temporary win to social media giants like Facebook (META), YouTube (GOOG, GOOGL), and TikTok as it sent a set of free speech cases back to the lower courts.

But the unanimous decision left unsettled the question of whether states can strip dominant social media companies of their power to unilaterally block users or remove posts that express certain viewpoints.

The set of cases before the high court challenged state laws in Florida and Texas limiting the capacity of such platforms to moderate posts.

The Supreme Court punted Monday on two cases concerning whether Florida and Texas’ anti-social media “censorship” laws are lawful under the First Amendment—providing no real clarity for either GOP-led states or the social media companies challenging them, as the court sent both cases back to lower courts after justices ruled unanimously that the lower courts hadn’t properly evaluated the issue.

The Supreme Court declined to rule Monday on challenges to laws out of Florida and Texas that curtail content regulation by social media giants, a rule meant to protect conservative voices on major platforms like Facebook and X.

In a unanimous decision for the combined NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice cases authored by liberal Justice Elana Kagan, the high court concluded that neither of the lower courts which considered the laws “conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges.”

A judge ruled that a Montana law which defined "sex" in state law, when referring to a person as only male or female, was unconstitutional, saying that the law's description did not explicitly state its purpose.

District Court Judge Shane Vannatta struck down the 2023 law on Tuesday after a group of plaintiffs who identify as transgender, nonbinary, intersex and other identities sued, arguing the law denies legal recognition and protection to people who identify as gender-nonconforming, according to The Associated Press.

If news is consumed in sound bites and headlines on social media, Florida’s new social media ban for minors could be a big win for lawmakers and Gov. Ron DeSantis.

They get to claim, “We’re fighting for children” — no doubt that’ll be the soundbite — and hope that Floridians stop paying attention when the law is caught up in legal challenges that might prevent it from ever taking effect.

Newly signed legislation in Florida prohibits people under 14 years of age from having social-media accounts, regardless of parental consent. It is due to go into effect Jan. 1. 

Here is a look at the law, including whether it is likely to withstand court challenges, why verifying users’ ages is tricky and how minors are currently protected online.

What does the new law require?