| Line 11: |
Line 11: |
| | *''[[Children’s Health Def. v. Facebook]]'', 546 F. Supp. 3d 909, 926, 930 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“the phrase ‘vaccine misinformation’ is a general one that could encompass many different types of speech and information about vaccines,” and thus the “general statements” by Congressman Schiff and the CDC concerning “vaccine misinformation” did not “mandate[] the particular actions that Facebook took with regard to [the plaintiff’s] Facebook page”) | | *''[[Children’s Health Def. v. Facebook]]'', 546 F. Supp. 3d 909, 926, 930 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“the phrase ‘vaccine misinformation’ is a general one that could encompass many different types of speech and information about vaccines,” and thus the “general statements” by Congressman Schiff and the CDC concerning “vaccine misinformation” did not “mandate[] the particular actions that Facebook took with regard to [the plaintiff’s] Facebook page”) |
| | *''Hart v. Facebook'', No. 22-cv-00737, 2022 WL 1427507 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2022) (content moderation measures by Twitter and Facebook had “no causal relationship with the Federal Defendants’ actions, and no court order as to the Federal Defendants could redress it”) | | *''Hart v. Facebook'', No. 22-cv-00737, 2022 WL 1427507 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2022) (content moderation measures by Twitter and Facebook had “no causal relationship with the Federal Defendants’ actions, and no court order as to the Federal Defendants could redress it”) |
| − | *''Huber v. Biden'', No. 21-cv-06580, 2022 WL 827248 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2022) (dismissing a claim of conspiracy between President Biden and Twitter to violate [[First Amendment]] rights) | + | *''Huber v. Biden'', No. 21-cv-06580, 2022 WL 827248 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2022) (dismissing a claim of conspiracy between President Biden and Twitter to violate [[First Amendment]] rights) |
| − | *''Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner'', 407 U.S. 551 (1972) (the First Amendment “safeguard[s] the rights of free speech” by placing “limitations on state action, not on action by” private actors) | + | *''Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner'', 407 U.S. 551 (1972) (the First Amendment “safeguard[s] the rights of free speech” by placing “limitations on state action, not on action by” private actors) - a case about control of private property |
| − | *''Lugar v. Edmondson Oil'', 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (the requirement of [[state action]] “avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed”) | + | *''Lugar v. Edmondson Oil'', 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (the requirement of [[state action]] “avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed”) - recognized that state action can exist |
| − | *''Rendell-Baker v. Kohn'', 457 U.S. 830 (1982) (a First Amendment exists for private conduct only if that conduct “can fairly be seen as state action”) | + | *''Rendell-Baker v. Kohn'', 457 U.S. 830 (1982) (a First Amendment exists for private conduct only if that conduct “can fairly be seen as state action”) - an employment-termination case against a private school |
| | + | |
| | == Other == | | == Other == |
| | *Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) | | *Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) |