Decision 5/23

I don't feel confident to make the proper edits, but the case has been decided. Suggest updating ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:213D:800:8502:9F8F:E0D4:C7F8 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Watershed Lawsuit rss feed

Discussion for inclusion into the article should commence. I am of the opinion that the complete record of events should be included due to the threat upon freedom of speech.

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?477261

July 11, 2017;Summons has been issued to Sean Spicer and has 21 days to respond.

--Wikipietime (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipietime: The link above takes me to a page with restricted access requiring a login and password. Regardless, Wikipedia articles should generally stick to what is reported in secondary and tertiary sources. Funcrunch (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

This really isn't too notable on its own, I propose merging with Donald Trump on social media. Thoughts? Jdcomix (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously as the article creator I'm a bit biased, but I feel there is significant enough coverage of this lawsuit in reliable sources to merit a standalone article. Funcrunch (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is coverage with the reliable sources, but there's no evidence that this will be notable in the long term, especially if the lawsuit doesn't progress. Jdcomix (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This case is a watershed First Amendment case. The district court opinion has already been cited by 19 cases, 36 secondary sources, and 60 published trial and appellate briefs. Judge Buchwald's determination that the "interactive space" is a designated public forum is incredibly important and will be the subject of lots of court cases and law review articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJKAtLaw (talk • contribs) 15:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in my COI declaration, I'm a plaintiff in the suit and don't intend to edit this article beyond the wikilink I already added. However, here are a few links to coverage on latest developments for the next editor to refer to if desired.

Anyway, yeah I have a lot of these links saved but obviously they're just a google search away. Coverage of the case by reliable sources has been consistent and robust. Cheers. joepaT 18:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case 18-1691, Document 25, 08/07/2018, 2362018 USGOVT appeal brief

Latest filing, the gov't's appeal:

Case 18-1691, Document 25, 08/07/2018, 2362018

Cheers! joepaT 02:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appealed to: Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University

Encyclopedic content regarding this stage of the case on appeal, belongs either in a separate section of this article here, or in its own dedicated article, or in both.

Reverting my contribution a new section here on this article, Masem stated in the edit summary that "we don't give sections to uncertified cases". To which I reply: Biden vs. Knight Institute was certified, so that the Second circuit ruling court be vacated. As it states in the first line of the decision itself:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 20–197. Decided April 5, 2021 The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring

So I put alot of research and hard work into created a new article, which the adverse editor Masem casually deleted here [1] flippantly observing that "This is the same case as the Trump one, there is no need for a separate page for it". But there is a need for an article, and especially so if he will disrupt contributions on the subject here. Moreover, the ed seems to be unware that different stages of appeal may have dedicated articles, as described in Template:Infobox_court_case, which has fields for "appealed from" and "appealed to".

He could have in a civil manner, proposed it to AfD. Or he could have copied the content into this article, instead of flippantly deleting it all.

In addition to the WP:tendentious rudeness to me personally, this this is basically ignorant and unencyclopedic behavior. I welcome good-faith partial reversions if he is doing it as part of a WP:Bold-refine process, but not if it is disruptive stonewalling for a status quo that is inadequate, while deleting good-faith, relevant contributions of verifiable material.

Justice Thomas's 12-page concurrence calling for reevalutation of section 230 and the Brand X case, was highly notable, and has has been highly noted. Its frequently cited in the legal and technical press, and the editors on this article have been slouching. They could have spent the last year researching instead of ignoring, but having ignored, their opinions on inclusion of new material are now as moot as the case itself. The court has consequently, in this the following years' session, granted certiorari to Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh and Google v. Gonzalez, which will everyone expects to be landmark cases. And this will be discussed whether the editors here like it or not.

The adverse editor should restore the article he tendentiously deleted, and should restore a summary section and links in this article to the case on appeal Biden v. Knight Institute, with Thomas's concurrence. I will accept this as an apology, forgive, and continue to assume good faith, and we can work together on improving this and future articles in the content area.

Otherwise, he should stand down and desist from interfering with my improvements to this article and others like it.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are still waiting four days later for an acknowledgement, at least, if not a restoration and apology. That would be the scholarly way.
That he is available to actively edit in the content area of video games, is evident from his list of contributions. And that he is choosing silence in this forum indicates probability that he has given up, but is not willing to concede. @Masem should argue with me, if he can.
However, I will give another day or three for @Masemto concede and restore the content himself. Or else to present an argument for its exclusion other than mere brute force. That would be conduct becoming of an editor whose status is administrator of wikipedia, and whose priveleges include the power to block me for "disruptive editing", and whose responsibilities include instructing relative newcomers like myself in the policy and culture of wikipedia editing. Like many other admins here, he has probably become overconfident from winning his content disputes per ad baculum and relying on scholarly contributors to give up in disgust and go away, and has consequently become overly comfortable with the intellectual stagnation that keeps fans of pop fiction and gaming in charge of editorial policy and decisions about what is "notable" and what is not. Apparently dramatic shifts in supreme court case law are less notable, less worthy of research, and less worthy of inclusion in an "encyclopedia", in his opinion, than these.
But if it is preferable to my opponent, the argument may also proceed here: Talk:Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University#Defense of Article on a Notable case against deletion by ignorant edit warriors I hope he is able to prove me wrong about the current administration, and invite him again to please do so.
Also the case now granted cert. on the matter the scope of section 230 immunity, subsequent to Justice Thomas's concurrence in Biden v. Knight Institute, is Gonzalez v. Google. Google v. Gonzalez was an unrelated 2005 case in a Spanish court. I invite all other legal researchers, scholars, and jurists, to please contribute. Thanks for your consideration. Jaredscribe (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Biden v. Knights is 100% the same legal case as Knights v. Trump, as Trump appealed the case while president (original petition in August 2020, then when the election happened and Biden became president, he inherited the case. Of course, he had signed that he was likely not going to challenge it. Hence it is the continuation of the Knights v. Trump case, so should not need a separate page.
Second, yes, they did certify it but all for a Munsingware mootness (as Trump was no longer president) to be returned to the lower court to close out. We also don't usually cover the separate SCOTUS action of mootness as a separate article, because the focus is on the action at the appeals level and why it got to SCOTUS.
Now, there is the matter of discussing what Thomas wrote in his opinion to that order. We should point out that it was made, and briefly cover it, but as there was no other opinion given by SCOTUS, going into excessive detail is unnecessary. As pointed out at the Section 230 page, Thomas has said of his intent to review Section 230 on multiple occasions - this was not the only case that has such a signed opinion from him on this. So we should not act like this is the case that has triggered the new ones being heard this term; this was a line of logic from Thomas for multiple years. Masem (t) 13:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Developments from 2024 SCOTUS decision in Lindke v. Freed were only partially incorporated into this article

I made some revisions to this article based on SCOTUS's holding last year in Lindke v. Freed. Lindke was briefly discussed here already. However, it needs to be clearer that the Lindke test is different than the Knight test. Since Lindke, every major legal research tool, including KeyCite (Westlaw) and Shepard's (LexisNexis), consider Knight as red-flagged "bad law." Lindke abrogated Knight by creating an entirely new test. That should be made more apparent in this article.

So, my revisions to keep this article better-updated with the Lindke developments are threefold:

1. Being more clear about the actual holding of Knight, particularly in the infobox, which misstated it as, "a social media account used by an American political leader is a public forum." That's not what this case says. Knight 's holding is that courts should look to the "official nature" of a social media account, that is, whether a "a public official [and/or] his subordinates hold out and use a social media account open to the public as an official account for conducting official business."

2. Being more clear that this case was vacated on appeal as moot. I've added a "subsequent actions" to the infobox using Microsoft Corp. v. United States as a helpful template involving a similar issue. I completely agree with the position previously discussed on the talk page that the Biden SCOTUS decision should not be its own article (or that this article should be merged into it) because it's not a full opinion, and it's literally the same case as this one, just with a different name due to the then-new President. As others stated back then, Biden only quickly concerned Munsingwear (340 U.S. 36 (1950)) mootness. The only arguable substance is Justice Thomas's concurrence, which I believe is already appropriately addressed in this article.

3. Explaining that Lindke abrogated Knight 's test. First, "subsequent developments" should be a separate section from "impact" anyways due to the chronology involved; this should now be easier to read. Second, while the state action test in Knight was simply whether the actor "held [the account] out to the public as an official account for conducting official business", Lindke held that to be considered a state action subject to the First Amendment, the official must both (1) possess actual authority to speak on the State's behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purport to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts. The "actual authority" is a completely new factor that significantly changes the law of Knight. While it's possible that the result of the decision in Knight would be the same if the Second Circuit applied the Lindke test, it's still a different test. To support this beyond the language of the decisions themselves, I added a published law journal article that makes a lot of sense if one reads the full Lindke opinion alongside Knight--we can safely say that Lindke abrogated the holding of Knight regardless of the 2021 vacated Judgment in Knight. This means that Knight 's reasoning is no longer good law, but to be safe, I qualified that assertion with the adverb "arguably" given the lack of direct overruling of Knight in Lindke (which was not done because Knight was already vacated and, thus, is no longer binding precedent anyways).

I've also generally cleaned up some messy language for readability. Map42892 (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say, this from your profile page is absolutely ridiculous: "This user believes that sources from social sciences, such as sociology and the critical theories, involve ideas rarely provable as fact, and are therefore usually less reliable than other fields for purposes of Wikipedia." This should be disqualifying, honestly. Read a book. Yyyikes (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is my viewpoint on sociology being a largely subjective, unfalsifiable field—which does not impact how I follow Wikipedia's editing guidelines—relevant to this page? I did not add, remove, or modify any sources or information about the social sciences. Also, there's no reason for you to be here on a page about a case in which you were a litigant. I'm not sure what you mean by "disqualifying," but I appreciate the irony that it's coming from someone who repeatedly edits his own Wikipedia article. Please review the talk page guidelines and use substantive words if you want to engage, Professor. Map42892 (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just chatting. Happy to explain your misunderstanding of sociology in another venue if you're ever interested. (The editing of my page has been litigated by wikipedia overlords and I think it's resolved). Not editing this page, obv, just following it. Yyyikes (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knight_First_Amendment_Institute_v._Trump
No tags for this post.