Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court addressed a lawsuit where RFK Jr.’s anti-vax organization, Children’s Health Defense (CHD), sued Meta for fact-checking and limiting the reach of anti-vax content posted by CHD. The Court reaffirmed Meta’s right to moderate content on its platform, highlighting that it’s a private entity and not subject to the First Amendment, which applies to the government. The case underscored that just because Meta sought guidance from the CDC on vaccine information, it doesn’t transform Meta into a state actor.
The Court dismissed CHD’s argument that Meta’s fact-checking violated the Lanham Act, emphasizing that Meta’s actions did not constitute commercial speech. Additionally, CHD’s attempt to link the fact checks to RICO claims was deemed far-fetched and lacking in direct evidence.
Furthermore, the Court rejected a theory suggesting that Section 230 turned social media companies into state actors, citing a misunderstanding of the law and highlighting that Section 230’s purpose was to grant immunity to online platforms for content moderation decisions.
Even the dissenting opinion, which suggested potential First Amendment violations, was based on flawed reasoning in interpreting Section 230 and the relationship between online platforms and free speech.
In summary, the recent court decision emphasized the rights of private companies like Meta to moderate content on their platforms based on their own policies. It clarified the limitations of the First Amendment concerning private entities and underscored the importance of understanding legal frameworks like Section 230 in the context of online content moderation.
For more insights on legal matters, financial services trends, and regulatory updates, stay tuned with Finance Docket, a collaboration between Breaking Media’s Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
