The Supreme Court today 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 deliver to their users, and the government has a very limited role in dictating what social media platforms must and must not publish. Although users remain understandably frustrated with how the large platforms moderate user speech, the best deal for users is when platforms make these decisions instead of the government.
As we explained in our amicus brief, users are far better off when publishers make editorial decisions free from government mandates. Although the court did not reach a final determination about the Texas and Florida laws, it confirmed that their core provisions are inconsistent with the First Amendment when they force social media sites to publish user posts that are, at best, irrelevant, and, at worst, false, abusive, or harassing. The government’s favored speakers would be granted special access to the platforms, and the government’s disfavored speakers silenced.
We filed our first brief advocating this position in 2018 and are pleased to see that the Supreme Court has finally agreed.
Notably, the court emphasizes another point EFF has consistently made: that the First Amendment right to edit and curate user content does not immunize social media platforms and tech companies more broadly from other forms of regulation not related to editorial policy. As the court wrote: “Many possible interests relating to social media can meet that test; nothing said here puts regulation of NetChoice’s members off-limits as to a whole array of subjects.” The court specifically calls out competition law as one avenue to address problems related to market dominance and lack of user choice. Although not mentioned in the court’s opinion, consumer privacy laws are another available regulatory tool.
We will continue to urge platforms large and small to adopt the Santa Clara Principles as a human rights framework for content moderation. Further, we will continue to advocate for strong consumer data privacy laws to regulate social media companies’ invasive practices, as well as more robust competition laws that could end the major platforms’ dominance.
EFF has been urging courts to adopt this position for almost six years. We filed our first amicus brief in November 2018: https://www.eff.org/document/prager-university-v-google-eff-amicus-brief
EFF’s must-carry laws issue page: https://www.eff.org/cases/netchoice-must-carry-litigation
Press release for our SCOTUS amicus brief: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/landmark-battle-over-free-speech-eff-urges-supreme-court-strike-down-texas-and
Direct link to our brief: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-brief-moodyvnetchoice
Related Cases: NetChoice Must-Carry LitigationRight-to-repair advocates have spent more than a decade working for a simple goal: to make sure you can fix and tinker with your own stuff. That should be true whether we’re talking about a car, a tractor, a smartphone, a computer, or really anything you buy. Yet product manufacturers have used the growing presence of software on devices to make nonsense arguments about why tinkering with your stuff violates their copyright.
Our years of hard work pushing for consumer rights to repair are paying off in a big way. Case in point: Today—July 1, 2024—two strong repair bills are now law in California and Minnesota. As Repair Association Executive Director Gay Gordon-Byrne said on EFF's podcast about right to repair, after doggedly chasing this goal for years, we caught the car!
Sometimes it's hard to know what to do after a long fight. But it's clear for the repair movement. Now is the time to celebrate! That's why EFF is joining our friends in the right to repair world by celebrating Repair Independence Day.
EFF is joining our friends in the right to repair world by celebrating Repair Independence Day.
There are a few ways to do this. You could grab your tools and fix that wonky key on your keyboard. You could take a cracked device to a local repair shop. Or you can read up on what your rights are. If you live in California or Minnesota—or in Colorado or New York, where right to repair laws are already in effect—and want to know what the repair laws in your state mean for you, check out this tip sheet from Repair.org.
And what if you're not in one of those states? We still have good news for you. We're all seeing the fruits of this labor of love, even in states where there aren't specific laws. Companies have heard, time and again, that people want to be able to fix their own stuff. As the movement gains more momentum, device manufacturers started to offer more repair-friendly programs: Kobo offering parts and guides, Microsoft selling parts for controllers, Google committing to offering spare parts for Pixels for seven years, and Apple offering some self-service repairs.
It's encouraging to see companies respond to our demands for the right to repair, though laws such as those going into effect today make sure they can't roll back their promises. And, of course, the work is not done. Repair advocates have won incredible victories in California and Minnesota (with another good law in Oregon coming online next July). But there are a still lots of things you should be able to fix without interference that are not covered by these bills, such as tractors.
We can't let up, especially now that we're winning. But today, it's time to enjoy our hard-won victories. Happy Repair Independence Day!
The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) wants to get a robot quadruped, popularly known as a robot dog. The city’s Board of Supervisors has a regulatory duty to probe into this intended purchase, including potentially blocking it altogether.
The SFPD recently proposed the acquisition of a new robot dog in a report about the department’s existing military arsenal and its proposed future expansion. The particular model that SFPD claims they are exploring, Boston Dynamics’s Spot, is capable of intrusion and surveillance in a manner similar to drones and other unmanned vehicles and is able to hold “payloads” like cameras.
The SFPD’s disclosure came about as a result of a California law, A.B. 481, which requires police departments to make publicly available information about “military equipment,” including weapons and surveillance tools such as drones, firearms, tanks, and robots. Some of this equipment may come through the federal government’s military surplus program.
A.B. 481 also requires a law enforcement agency to seek approval from its local governing body when acquiring, using, or seeking funds for military equipment and submit a military equipment policy. That policy must be made publicly available and must be approved by the governing body of the jurisdiction on a yearly basis. As part of that approval process, the governing body must determine that the policy meets the following criteria:
Based on the oversight requirements imposed by A.B. 481, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors must ask the SFPD some important questions before deciding if the police department actually needs a robot dog: How will the SFPD use this surveillance equipment? Given that the robot dog does not have the utility of one of the department’s bomb disposal robots, why would this robot be useful? What can this robot do that other devices it already has at its disposal cannot do? Does the potential limited use of this device justify its expenditure? How does the SFPD intend to safeguard civil rights and civil liberties in deploying this robot into communities that may already be overpoliced?
If the SFPD cannot make a compelling case for the purchase of a robot quadruped, the Board of Supervisors has a responsibility to block the sale.
A.B. 481 serves as an important tool for democratic control of police’s acquisition of surveillance technology despite recent local efforts to undermine such oversight. In 2019, San Francisco passed a Community Control of Police Surveillance (CCOPS) ordinance, which required city departments like the SFPD to seek Board approval before acquiring or using new surveillance technologies, in a transparent process that offered the opportunity for public comment. This past March, voters scaled back this law by enacting Proposition E, which allows the SFPD a one-year “experimentation” period to test out new surveillance technologies without a use policy or Board approval. However, the state statute still governs military equipment, such as the proposed robot dog, which continues to need Board approval before purchasing and still requires a publicly available policy that takes into consideration the uses of the equipment and the civil liberties impacts on the public.
In 2022, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors banned police deployment of deadly force via remote control robot, so at least we know this robot dog will not be used in that way. It should also be noted that Boston Dynamics has vowed not to arm their robots. But just because this robot dog doesn’t have a bomb strapped to it, doesn’t mean it will prove innocuous to the public, useful to police, or at all helpful to the city. The Board of Supervisors has an opportunity and a responsibility to ensure that any procurement of robots comes with a strong justification from the SFPD, clear policy around how it can be used, and consideration of the impacts on civil rights and civil liberties. Just because narratives about rising crime have gained a foothold does not mean that elected officials get to abdicate any sense of reason or practicality in what technology they allow police departments to buy and use. When it comes to military equipment, the state of California has given cities an oversight tool—and San Francisco should use it.
The EU Council has now passed a 4th term without passing its controversial message-scanning proposal. The just-concluded Belgian Presidency failed to broker a deal that would push forward this regulation, which has now been debated in the EU for more than two years.
For all those who have reached out to sign the “Don’t Scan Me” petition, thank you—your voice is being heard. News reports indicate the sponsors of this flawed proposal withdrew it because they couldn’t get a majority of member states to support it.
Now, it’s time to stop attempting to compromise encryption in the name of public safety. EFF has opposed this legislation from the start. Today, we’ve published a statement, along with EU civil society groups, explaining why this flawed proposal should be withdrawn.
The scanning proposal would create “detection orders” that allow for messages, files, and photos from hundreds of millions of users around the world to be compared to government databases of child abuse images. At some points during the debate, EU officials even suggested using AI to scan text conversations and predict who would engage in child abuse. That’s one of the reasons why some opponents have labeled the proposal “chat control.”
There’s scant public support for government file-scanning systems that break encryption. Nor is there support in EU law. People who need secure communications the most—lawyers, journalists, human rights workers, political dissidents, and oppressed minorities—will be the most affected by such invasive systems. Another group harmed would be those whom the EU’s proposal claims to be helping—abused and at-risk children, who need to securely communicate with trusted adults in order to seek help.
The right to have a private conversation, online or offline, is a bedrock human rights principle. When surveillance is used as an investigation technique, it must be targeted and coupled with strong judicial oversight. In the coming EU council presidency, which will be led by Hungary, leaders should drop this flawed message-scanning proposal and focus on law enforcement strategies that respect peoples’ privacy and security.
Further reading: