Lindke v. Freed

Court: US Supreme Court

Docket: 22-611

Opinion Date: March 15, 2024

Judge: Barrett

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Communications Law, Internet Law

In a case involving a city manager's personal social media account, a citizen sued the city manager under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated when the manager deleted his comments and blocked him from commenting further. The city manager argued that he operated his social media account in his private capacity, thus not constituting state action required for §1983 liability. The District Court and the Sixth Circuit affirmed this view, determining that the city manager's social media conduct did not constitute state action.

The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Sixth Circuit's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings. The court held that a public official's social media activity constitutes state action under §1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State's behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts. The court emphasized that the first prong is grounded in the requirement that the conduct causing the deprivation of a federal right be fairly attributable to the State. The second prong requires that the official must purport to use that authority. The court noted that the nature of the technology matters to the state-action analysis and that the state-action doctrine requires a fact-intensive inquiry.

United States v. Orlandella

Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Docket: 22-1686

Opinion Date: March 20, 2024

Judge: THOMPSON

Areas of Law: Communications Law, Criminal Law, Internet Law

The defendant, Brian Orlandella, was convicted by a jury of sexual exploitation of a minor and transfer of obscene material to a minor. The charges arose from Orlandella's interactions with a minor via the Kik messenger app. On appeal, Orlandella raised five arguments, all of which were rejected by the court.

Orlandella argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, but the court held that a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he persuaded the minor to produce explicit videos and pictures. Orlandella also contended that the court erred by not giving the jury a specific unanimity instruction on Count One, but the court held that a general unanimity instruction was sufficient.

Furthermore, Orlandella claimed that the government violated its obligations to disclose evidence that could have helped his defense. However, the court found that the evidence in question was not material and its suppression did not undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. Orlandella also argued that the court erred by failing to give the jury a missing witness instruction regarding the government's failure to call the minor as a witness. The court found that the minor was not peculiarly available to the government and that Orlandella was not prejudiced by her absence. Finally, Orlandella contended that his incriminating statements were taken in violation of his Miranda rights. The court held that even if there was a Miranda violation, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence against Orlandella. Consequently, his convictions were affirmed.

Wozniak v. YouTube, LLC

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: H050042(Sixth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 18, 2024

Judge: Wilson

Areas of Law: Communications Law, Internet Law

The plaintiffs in this case, Steve Wozniak and 17 individuals who fell victim to a cryptocurrency scam, sued YouTube and Google. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants knowingly hosted, promoted, and profited from a scam that falsely claimed Wozniak was hosting a live event, during which anyone who sent cryptocurrency to a specified account would receive double the amount in return. The defendants argued that the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provided immunity because the plaintiffs were trying to treat them as publishers of third-party content. However, the plaintiffs contended that they were not treating the defendants as publishers but were instead seeking to hold them liable for engaging in actions they knew would further criminal activity.

The Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District held that most of the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the Communications Decency Act as they sought to treat the defendants as publishers of third-party content. However, the court found that the plaintiffs' claim that defendants created their own content and materially contributed to the scam's illegality by providing verification badges to hijacked YouTube channels potentially fell outside the scope of immunity. The court concluded that the trial court erred in not granting leave to amend the claims related to verification badges. The judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Justia Webinars: Confronting Racial Bias in Jury Selection

Justia Team

Our legal system is built upon the fundamental principle of a right to a fair trial by a jury of one’s peers; but can we consider the trial fair if the jury is not? Can an underrepresentation of marginalized communities of color in the jury truly deem a trial as fair, accurate, and reliable?

Read More