NetChoice

🚨🚨 Court Rules Against California’s Trojan Horse for Censorship for FOURTH Time PASADENA, Calif.—Today, NetChoice secured a major victory from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which agreed that a majority of California’s Online Speech Code was unconstitutional. Of the six substantive provisions NetChoice challenged, five remain enjoined after today’s decision, and the remaining provision is hanging by a thread. NetChoice will continue to vociferously make our case that the entire law, which is a Trojan Horse for mass digital censorship in America, is unconstitutional and must be stopped. “Today’s decision is a huge victory for free speech and essentially a death knell for California’s online speech code. California cannot mandate vague and onerous changes to how speech is disseminated online. The Ninth Circuit was clear: on the substance, NetChoice is likely to prevail,” said @Paul_Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. Taske continued: “This law is hanging on by a thread. To the extent there is some additional work to do in the district court, we look forward to making a full showing and striking down California’s Speech Code permanently.”

Lawmakers are considering new rules that could restrict these digital tools that companies are using to help families save money. Instead of more red tape, we need a clear, federal data privacy standard that protects consumers instead of punishing them at the checkout counter. buff.ly/tysYacN

From personalized grocery deals to discounts on baby formula, data-driven pricing is the modern version of clipping coupons from the Sunday paper. These tools help you get deals tailored to your needs and help small businesses compete.

Read our meaningful and legal solutions for digital safety HERE: buff.ly/DFlltK3

From Virginia to California, Maryland, Arkansas, and more, NetChoice is securing victories against laws that censor speech and undermine security online. Lawmakers can protect Americans and our families without burning down the First Amendment.

Read why the consumer welfare standard is essential to a competitive retail sector: buff.ly/WpJTJ1t

The consumer welfare standard is the north star of U.S. antitrust policy. It ensures antitrust enforcement focuses on what matters most: Americans.

For decades, the consumer welfare standard has delivered a dynamic economy. Abandoning it for vague standards would deliver Americans higher prices and less choice. Let’s keep the focus where it belongs: on the consumer.

America must not emulate Europe's antitrust policy failures that have already harmed our jobs, companies, and economic health. Read more by @pat_hedger:buff.ly/O8pjnkr

European regulators (with the help of Biden’s radical progressive antitrust agenda) didn’t just stop the iRobot merger. They kneecapped a frontier American company, killed hundreds of U.S. jobs, and provided a massive, unearned victory to Chinese state-backed competitors.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that how a platform organizes content is protected editorial judgment. #HB227 bans "profile-based feeds" for minors. That's not regulating a feature — it's regulating speech. Kentucky courts will have to sort it out and it won't be cheap. #1A

Thank God for the First Amendment 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

The claim that AI data centers are draining America’s water supply falls apart under basic SCRUTINY. Data centers use LESS than 0.5% of U.S. freshwater, while leaky infrastructure wastes over 15 times more and irrigation uses more than 100 times as much. There is also NO documented case anywhere in the country where AI infrastructure has increased household water prices.

"Data centers are draining our water" is the new "plastic straws are destroying the ocean." It's a hoax, and many people pushing it know it's not true. At AFPI (@A1policy) we wrote a piece breaking down the numbers: 1) Data centers use very little water > Somewhere between 0.2% and 0.5% of U.S. freshwater consumption > 15x less water than we lose each year to leaky pipes > The biggest data center of 2024 uses less water than 3 square miles of farmland (America has 1.3 million) 2) Local water impacts are small, too > In one of the country’s most “water stressed” counties, data centers are 0.12% of its water use (golf courses are 3.8%) 3) This hasn’t stopped lawmakers from fearmongering about data centers > 5 senators, including Bernie Sanders and Ed Markey, wrote a letter to the admin complaining about data center water use > Lawmakers have introduced legislation and called for data center moratoriums because of fake water use claims. Denver might enact one soon 4) Data centers are one of America’s greatest strengths > Huge local tax revenues > The AI data center boom has created tremendous economic growth > Wages in construction and the trades have skyrocketed (construction up >30% because of data centers) We end by suggesting some ways to accelerate the data center buildout, while protecting local communities' interests. Full piece here: americafirstpolicy.com/issues/the-dat…

🚨🚨 @FoxNews: 1 BILLION identity records exposed in ID verification data leak — INCLUDING +203 MILLION America records Governments requiring Digital ID w/ "age verification" mandates create MASSIVE security risks The threat is NOT hypothetical. Another unfortunate example:

British media have uncritically carried water for the Online Safety Act for years. Legal reality is that Americans, in America, are lawfully entitled to refuse to comply with government censorship, whatever its source. That's what it means to have free speech.

The @SenateCommerce Committee is debating the future of Section 230 shortly after its 30th birthday. For a law with only 26 words, there are a lot of misconceptions about Section 230 that are worth clearing up. Myth 1: It only protects "Big Tech" Section 230 protects anyone and everyone hosting third-party content. Wikipedia, Reddit, Yelp, Truth Social, Bluesky, your local newspaper's comment section, and even a church website with a forum all benefit from 230's protections. If anything, without Section 230, smaller platforms can't justify the liability risk of hosting third-party content, leaving only the largest platforms standing. Myth 2: Platforms must be "neutral" to maintain 230 protections The word "neutral" does not appear anywhere in the law. Section 230 allows private platforms to experiment with new ways to moderate their platform that best align with user preferences without fear of massive legal backlash. If users are dissatisfied with a platform's approach, they are free to take their business elsewhere. That creates market incentives for platforms to compete by providing the optimal user experience instead of defaulting to blanket censorship out of legal caution. Myth 3: Section 230 means zero accountability Section 230 protects editorial discretion, not criminal conduct. Platforms remain liable for child exploitation, fraud, and other federal crimes. You are still responsible for what you post. Section 230 simply says the platform hosting your speech isn't treated as the one saying it — the same way a bulletin board isn't responsible for the flyers pinned to it.

This is what Age Verification bills lead to... CC: @HouseCommerce, @RepGuthrie, @USRepGaryPalmer, @SenKatieBritt, @MarshaBlackburn, @HouseGOP, @SenateGOP @RepLedbetter, @GarlanGudgerJr, @ALGOP #Alabama #Kentucky #Tennessee

Oh no, not digital price tags!

Ep. 266: How foreign censors target American speakers Governments around the world have increasingly sought to regulate online speech well beyond their borders. If global platforms are forced to comply with the world’s most restrictive laws, whose speech standards win? And what happens to a free and open internet when governments apply their censorship rules across borders? @TheFIREorg's @NicoPerrino spoke with @prestonjbyrne, an attorney and expert in international law and emerging technologies, who now serves as counsel to a coalition of internet publishing platforms suing the United Kingdom’s internet regulator. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 02:15 Preston’s background 16:46 What do foreign censorship laws actually target? 22:35 The UK’s Online Safety Act 29:39 Free speech cultures: US vs. UK 40:48 The GRANITE Act and protecting Americans from foreign censorship 1:01:15 Outro