Talk:Moody v. NetChoice, LLC: Difference between revisions
GabeIglesia (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases}} |
{{WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{American English}} |
|||
== Suggestions == |
== Suggestions == |
||
Revision as of 09:23, 12 March 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Moody v. NetChoice, LLC article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This page was proposed for deletion by Muboshgu (talk · contribs) on 2 June 2022. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Suggestions
In my opinion, the major ruling gets lost in the procedural details. Now that the 5th circuit has issued it's ruling I feel that much prior procedural issues could be eliminated.
While the court ruled that censorship is not speech, it also ruled that the platforms are common carriers. The comparison to telephone and telegraph companies is particularly on point. (I personally feel SCOTUS will re-affirm that censorship is a type of speech, but that the platforms are common carriers and can't refuse service to selected users.)
Big Tech's reliance on 230 (shield from liability) and repeated claims that they are NOT publishers, are also critical considerations, and should be mentioned, in my opinion.
I will not make any changes as Wiki, in my opinion, is often a hostile place. This is only my opinion, I respect if you have another, please respect mine. Have a great day. 2601:5C4:4301:217C:9123:5676:F99D:8C90 (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I note that this ruling, while very major is not yet a SCOTUS case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C4:4301:217C:9123:5676:F99D:8C90 (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Oral argument transcripts available
For any editors seeking to add/edit info about the oral arguments on February 26, the transcripts are now available from the US Supreme Court:
- Dyork (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Multiple articles about these cases
I will note that currently there are several different places that need to be updated about these cases. We have:
- Moody v. NetChoice, LLC - this article which goes into detail about the cases
- NetChoice - that has summaries of the cases
- Texas House Bill 20 - an article about the overall Texas law that is challenged in NetChoice v Paxton. (There is not, that I could find, a similar separate article for Florida SB7072.)
I think it's fine to have this set of different articles, as they serve different purposes. We just need to remember that when we update one of the articles, we may (or may not) also need to update the other articles.
We may want to check for consistency, too. I could see, for example, someone updating the case summary on NetChoice and not being aware there is a larger article specifically about the case. - Dyork (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- The NetChoice article likely needs to be trimmed a bit to avoid duplication if the lawsuit details (not removed). Masem (t) 14:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)