The Ninth Circuit has firmly rejected the claims brought by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s organization, Children’s Health Defense (CHD), which argued that Meta’s fact-checking and limitation of anti-vaccine content violated the First Amendment and transformed Meta into a state actor under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This ruling highlights significant legal principles on private moderation and the limitations of constitutional claims against non-governmental entities.
Techdirt reports the original lawsuit from 2020 claimed that Meta’s actions, which included using fact-checkers to label CHD content as false or misleading and subsequently demoting said content, amounted to governmental censorship. The appeal followed an earlier dismissal where the court underscored that Meta, being a private company, retains the right to moderate content under its own policies, separate from government interference.
In detailed analysis, the court dismantled the arguments suggesting Meta acted as a state player. Simply referencing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) guidelines on vaccine information did not transmute Meta into a state actor nor reflect coercion by the government. The Ninth Circuit noted that any collaboration between Meta and the CDC was not enough to establish the necessary joint action or coercion required to convert Meta’s private decisions into state actions.
Additionally, the majority opinion addressed an alternative invocation of Section 230. CHD argued that this provision, which grants internet platforms immunity from liability for user-generated content, inherently made Meta a state actor because it enabled them to broadly moderate content. However, the court found this theory exceptionally unconvincing, emphasizing that Section 230 was intended to encourage platforms to filter offensive material without the specter of legal repercussions, not to dictate specific content moderation practices.
As reported by Techdirt, they explored the broader implications of these rulings and cautioned against the stretching of legal theories to fit ideological goals. They also noted that the Ninth Circuit drew from recent Supreme Court decisions, which highlighted the independence of platforms like Meta to establish and enforce their own policies, even when those align with governmental public health goals.
This ruling is significant for legal professionals navigating the complex intersections of First Amendment rights, private moderation, and statutory protections under Section 230. It reinforces the position that private companies have the constitutional right to moderate content on their platforms, following their guidelines, without being deemed government actors.