{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/61e878a1419a9b0013b27134/632d0ac86f53290013a4d281?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"The Fifth Circuit is Wrong on the Internet","thumbnail_width":200,"thumbnail_height":200,"thumbnail_url":"https://open-images.acast.com/shows/undefined/1642625091768-3ba901c505852d077e44a35fab2cfb73.jpeg?height=200","description":"<p>Our <em>Arbiters of Truth</em> series on the online information ecosystem has been taking a bit of a hiatus—but we’re back! On today’s episode, we’re discussing the recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in <em>NetChoice v. Paxton</em>, upholding a Texas law that binds large social media platforms to certain transparency requirements and significantly limits their ability to moderate content. The decision is truly a wild ride—so unhinged that it’s difficult to figure out where First Amendment law in this area might go next.</p><p>To discuss, <em>Lawfare</em> senior editor Quinta Jurecic sat down with fellow <em>Lawfare</em> senior editor Alan Rozenshtein and Alex Abdo, the litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University—who’s <a href=\"https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-platforms-versus-texas-supreme-court\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">come on the podcast before</a> to discuss the case. They tried to make sense of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and chart out alternative possibilities for what good-faith jurisprudence on social media regulation might look like.</p>","author_name":"Lawfare & University of Texas Law School"}