Talk:Moody v. NetChoice, LLC

Suggestions

In my opinion, the major ruling gets lost in the procedural details. Now that the 5th circuit has issued it's ruling I feel that much prior procedural issues could be eliminated.

While the court ruled that censorship is not speech, it also ruled that the platforms are common carriers. The comparison to telephone and telegraph companies is particularly on point. (I personally feel SCOTUS will re-affirm that censorship is a type of speech, but that the platforms are common carriers and can't refuse service to selected users.)

Big Tech's reliance on 230 (shield from liability) and repeated claims that they are NOT publishers, are also critical considerations, and should be mentioned, in my opinion.

I will not make any changes as Wiki, in my opinion, is often a hostile place. This is only my opinion, I respect if you have another, please respect mine. Have a great day. 2601:5C4:4301:217C:9123:5676:F99D:8C90 (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I note that this ruling, while very major is not yet a SCOTUS case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C4:4301:217C:9123:5676:F99D:8C90 (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Oral argument transcripts available

For any editors seeking to add/edit info about the oral arguments on February 26, the transcripts are now available from the US Supreme Court:

• Moody v NetChoice
• NetChoice v Paxton

- Dyork (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiple articles about these cases

I will note that currently there are several different places that need to be updated about these cases. We have:

• Moody v. NetChoice, LLC - this article which goes into detail about the cases
• NetChoice - that has summaries of the cases
• Texas House Bill 20 - an article about the overall Texas law that is challenged in NetChoice v Paxton. (There is not, that I could find, a similar separate article for Florida SB7072.)

I think it's fine to have this set of different articles, as they serve different purposes. We just need to remember that when we update one of the articles, we may (or may not) also need to update the other articles.

We may want to check for consistency, too. I could see, for example, someone updating the case summary on NetChoice and not being aware there is a larger article specifically about the case. - Dyork (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The NetChoice article likely needs to be trimmed a bit to avoid duplication if the lawsuit details (not removed). Masem (t) 14:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Two Different Cases

As of right now (March 2024), this article is confusing because it covers Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton. Those are two different cases in reaction to two different state laws that have gone though different District and Circuit Courts. They have not yet been combined under the same name, not even in the early Supreme Court documents so far. I think the two cases should have separate Wikipedia articles, which I am willing to develop. But then the Supreme Court will probably issue a joint ruling that covers both, perhaps under yet another combined name. That then would be confusing in its own right. Any thoughts? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

They are being treated as connected cases but not consolidated by the media because the core question is effectively the same. If the court rules in two different opinions, then splitting does make sense, but right now the expectation is one will have a full ruling and the second will be per Curiam based on the first, which is good reason to keep them as one. It's better to wait until the rules are issued to determine whether to split. Masem (t) 18:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

No dispute there, but I find the (current) article title indicating only the Moody case to be a source of unnecessary confusion, and it makes the Paxton case look like a lesser hanger-on when it is not. Can't think of a better article title though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

There's not really a better choice. The second case name does redirect here, so in terms of searching we are covered, and the lede is clear there are two cases involved but nit consolidated.

What I expect will be like what happened in Lindke v. Freed. That article had sat under the second case name until the SCOTUS devesions were out, with the full decision under Lindje and the other case decided per Curiam. If the second case here gets the full decision, then we'll rename. If they both get full decisions then a split makes sense. Masem (t) 19:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Who is "we" in that last edit by Masem to the article? WP:OWNERSHIP. I work on court case articles regularly and see the those direct documents all the time, and I added nothing inaccurate or harmful to this article. Please advise on what problem was solved by reverting my edits, and under what WP rule. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Court documents are primary sources, and WP editors are not legal experts (under NOR). We should not use them for citation, but instead rely on third party sources to determine what are the key facets to include. Direct references to prior decisions should be documented in the infobox for reference. Masem (t) 20:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been absent from WP for a week. WP:NOR, which you cited, has a footnote about trial documents which I assume means internal paperwork, but the final ruling has been edited and published in reliable sources, so I would argue that it is not an unacceptable primary source. WP:NOR also says "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care" and "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". Therefore my additions to this article were not a problem that needed to be removed because students and researchers use ruling documents as a matter of custom. And by the way, I am a legal expert but thanks for assuming otherwise. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The clear factual parts of a SCOTUS ruling that we can pull with engaging in OR or POV is what is held, and who wrote or joined what opinion. Everything else stated in the opinion is of questionable weight and importance that we, as editors and not legal experts, cannot tell is of highest importance. That's what we leave to law scholars and journalists to figure out. It is likely we could, without those sources, make a judgment call at what critical lines in an opinion are essential summation that end up being used by other sources to summarize the case, but we can't really do that without engaging in OR. And we may be personally biased to focus on good or bad parts of decision in that selection too, violating NPOV.

It is far better to used secondary sources that pull from the devision than the devision itself. Masem (t) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

To add, just because you may be an expert in a topic doesn't mean we can rely solely on your expertise to write about that topic. I have expertise in many computer and science related topics, but all that means as a WP editor is that I know what sources to use and how these sources frame topics to write NOR/NPOV compliant summaries. Masem (t) 15:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

None of what you just said is present in any of the WP guidelines or policies that you cited. WP:OWNERSHIP remains relevant here. I am going to do some work on this article because I think it needs improvement, but my edits will add knowledge for the hypothetical reader and will not create a new problem that you need to solve by fiat. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

All of what I said Is policy based. You may also wish to review WP:EXPERT which outlines what you should and should not do if you happen to be an expert us a area. Masem (t) 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)