interessante caso sul diritto di parola e la content moderation di Facebook (Fb) in relazione ad un ente che sostiene la pericolosità di varie pratiche sociali, tra cui vaccini e la tecnocologia 5G per telefoni.
Fb aveva etichettato i post del CHD come di dbbia attendibilità e simili (v. esempi grafici di ciò i nsentenza a p. 8/9).
Tra le causae petendi la prima era basata sul Primo (e 5°) Emendametno in relazione al caso Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics del 1971 (il che dà l’idea del ruolo svolto dal precedente nella common law, degli USA almeno).
Gli attori diccono <<that “Facebook and the other defendants violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by labeling CHD’s content ‘False Information,’ and taking other steps effectively to censor or block content from users. . . . Facebook took these actions againstPlaintiff in an effort to silence and deter its free speech solely on account of their viewpoint.” Id. ¶ 318. CHD also assertsa First Amendment retaliation claim, allegingthat after it filed this lawsuit, Facebook notified CHD that it “would modify the parties’ contractual term of service § 3.2, effective October 1, 2020, to read: ‘We also can remove or restrict access to your content, services, or information if we determine that doing so is reasonably necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse legal or regulatory impacts to Facebook.’”Id. ¶ 324>>, p. 12.
E poi: <<CHD alleges that defendants violated the Fifth Amendment by permanently disabling the “donate” button on CHD’s Facebook page and by refusing “to carry CHD’s advertising of its fundraising campaigns.” Id.¶ 319.6CHD alleges that “Defendants’ actions amount to an unlawful deprivation or ‘taking’ of Plaintiff’s property interests in its own fundraising functions. . . . without just compensation or due process.” Id. ¶¶ 320, 322.>>, ivi.
Il tribunale, però, conferma che le entità private non sono sottoposte al Primo emenda,mento ma solo Federal Actors, p. 12-13.
E’ curioso che gli attori avessero citato personalmente Mark Zuckerberg , dicendo che aveva realizzato <federal actin>per i due motivi indicati a pp. 14-15 (tra cui la combinazione con l’azione provaccini e contro la disinformazione, portata avanti dal Congressman Adam Schiff ,consistente in una lettera aperta a MZ).
Che l’intevento diretto di MZ fosse probabile, non basta: dovevano dare la prova che egli actually partecipated, p. 16.
Da ultimo , non realizza Federal Action il fatto che Fb fruisca del safe harbour ex § 230 CDA. Gli attori infatti avevano così detto: <<CHD also allegesthat “government immunity [under Section 230of the CDA] plus pressure (Rep. Schiff). . should turn Facebook and Zuckerberg’s private–party conduct into state action.” SAC ¶ 300.CHD asserts that Section 230, “by immunizing private parties against liability if they engage in conduct the government seeks to promote, constitutes sufficient encouragement to turn private action into state action.” CHD’s Opp’n to Facebook’s Mtn. at 6. With regard to coercion, CHD allegesthat Congressman Schiff pressured Facebook and Zuckerberg to remove “vaccine misinformation” through his February 2019 letter and his subsequentpublic statement that “if the social media companies can’t exercise a proper standard of care when it comes to a whole variety of fraudulent or illicit content, then we have to think about whether [Section 230] immunity still makes sense.” SAC ¶ 64. CHDrelies onSkinner v. RailwayLabsExecutives’ Association, 489 U.S. 602 (1989),as support for its contention that the immunity provided by Section 230 is sufficient encouragement to convert private action into state action>>, p. 24.
Ma la corte rigetta, p. 25: <<Skinner does not aid CHD.“Unlike the regulations in Skinner, Section 230 does not require private entities to do anything, nor does it give the government a right to supervise or obtain information about private activity.” >>
Altra causa petendi è la violazione del Lanham Act (concorrenza sleale a vario titolo e qui tramite informazioni denigratorie o decettive).
Per gli attori , 1) i convenuti erano concorrenti (è il tema più interessante sotto il profilo teorico) e 2) tramite la etichettatura di FB volutamente errata, avevano diffuso notizie dannose a carico degli attori, p. 28-29.
La Corte rigetta anche qui: <<However, the warning label and fact–checks are not disparaging CHD’s “goods or services,” nor are they promoting the “goods or services” of Facebook, the CDC,or the fact–checking organizations such as Poynter. In addition, the warning label and fact–checks do not encourage Facebook users to donate to the CDC, the fact–checking organizations, or any other organization. Instead, the warning label informs visitors to CHD’s Facebook page that they can visit the CDC website to obtain “reliable up–to–date information” about vaccines, and the fact–checks identify that a post has been fact–checked, with a link to an explanation of why the post/article has been identified as false or misleading.>>, p. 30.
(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog di Eric Goldman)