explaining that the fact that platforms “have not been aggressively ex- ercising their editorial discretion does not mean that they have no right to ex- ercise their editorial discretion”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the fact that platforms “have not been aggressively ex- ercising their editorial discretion does not mean that they have no right to ex- ercise their editorial discretion”
- “[E]xcept in rare circumstances, the First Amendment does not allow the Gov- ernment to regulate the content choices of private editors just so that the Government may enhance certain voices and alter the content available to the citizenry”
- “[T]he [Brand X] Court made clear in its decision— over and over—that the Act left the [classification] to the agency’s discretion.” (Srinivasan, J., joined by Tatel, J., concurring in denial of rehearing en banc)
- “[T]he Supreme Court’s Turner Broadcasting decisions mean that Internet service providers possess a First Amendment right to exercise their editorial discretion over what content to carry and how to carry it.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER
PER CURIAM
The petitions for rehearing en banc, the responses thereto, and the brief of amici curiae were circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges eligible to vote did not vote in favor of the petitions. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the petitions be denied.