In today\u2019s world, free speech is absolutely pivotal in building a working society. In addition, it is probably the most fundamental right a person can have hence it is also the first amendment in the US constitution. The Supreme Court of The United States regularly has its hands full in trying to protect free speech while also trying to protect citizens from harmful and dangerous speech.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the Supreme Court case PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins<\/em> the court was once again dealing with a free speech \u2013related issue. The case was about a group of high school students who set up a stand in the PruneYard Shopping Center. The students were collecting signatures from passers-by and also giving out literature regarding a United Nations decision against Zionism. The students were asked to leave by a security guard since they hadn\u2019t been given permission to do so by the owners of the Shopping Center. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court upheld California\u2019s Supreme Courts decision unanimously. In the decision the Supreme Court stated that under California\u2019s constitution, individuals could practice their right to free speech even in someone else\u2019s private property at least when the property is regularly open to the public. It also stated that states could give citizens more rights than those that are awarded on the federal level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What I want to focus on in this blog text is how the PruneYard <\/em>case was used as an argument over 40 years later in the Moody v. NetChoice<\/em> case. In the Moody <\/em>case the Supreme Court was dealing with a dilemma caused by social media networks and more specifically their moderation. The case was given back to the Circuit Courts because of procedural mishaps, but the judges did still give opinions on the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this blog text I will concentrate on Justice Alito\u2019s concurring opinion, in which he referred to the PruneYard<\/em>case. Alito states that social media platforms and shopping center\u2019s can be compared in some regards. The main point being that both entities are open to the public and can in that aspect be forced to host or publish speech that does not concur its own viewpoint. Alito also argues that in both cases, the speech allowed in either the shopping center or on social media platforms the opinions expressed would not be mixed with the possible message of the publisher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At least in this case, Alito represents free speech as an absolute. He states that people should be able to publish almost anything on these platforms, regardless of the content. Alito thinks of social media as more of a \u201cfree marketplace of ideas\u201d instead of a more traditional media outlet, which naturally has to have the ability to limit speech.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What do I think of the PruneYard<\/em> case being used in this case? I don\u2019t think that social media platforms and shopping centers can be compared pound for pound. What I do in some capacity agree with is Alito\u2019s idea of social media platforms being more open. At least I think that the platforms should be more transparent in their moderation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So in conclusion I would say that the judgment in the PruneYard <\/em>case is good and also relevant in today\u2019s times. But I don\u2019t think that it is the best argument to use in a case regarding social media platforms, due to their inherent differences. But I do hope that the Moody case will return to the Supreme Court and we can get a conclusion to this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thanks for reading!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Team Moody<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In today\u2019s world, free speech is absolutely pivotal in building a working society. In addition, it is probably the most fundamental right a person can have hence it is also the first amendment in the US constitution. The Supreme Court of The United States regularly has its hands full in trying to protect free speech … Continue reading The PruneYard case \u2013 Defending free speech in today\u2019s United States?<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35805,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-269","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-scotus-2025"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35805"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=269"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":270,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269\/revisions\/270"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}