Case: 20-3434 Document: 28 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2021 Nos. 20-3434, 20-3492 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ FDRLST MEDIA, LLC, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. ________________ On Review from the National Labor Relations Board (No. 02-CA-243109) ________________ BRIEF OF TECHFREEDOM AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER AND REVERSAL ________________ Corbin K. Barthold Berin Szóka James Dunstan TECHFREEDOM 110 Maryland Ave., NE Suite 205 Washington, DC 20002 (925) 788-6847 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae March 29, 2021 TechFreedom Case: 20-3434 Document: 28 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2021 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Rule 26.1 and Third Circuit LAR 26.1, TechFreedom makes the following disclosures: 1) For non-governmental corporate parties, please list all parent corporations: Not applicable. TechFreedom is a non-profit corporation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. TechFreedom has no parent corporation. 2) For non-governmental corporate parties, please list all publicly held companies that hold 10% or more of the party’s stock: Not applicable. TechFreedom has issued no stock. 3) If there is a publicly held corporation which is not a party to the proceeding before this Court but which has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding, please identify all such parties and specify the nature of the financial interest or interests: TechFreedom is unaware of any such corporation, apart from those identified by the parties. 4) In all bankruptcy appeals counsel for the debtor or trustee of the bankruptcy estate must list: (1) the debtor, if not identified in the case caption; (2) the members of the creditors’ committee or the top 20 unsecured creditors; and (3) any entity not named in the caption which is an active participant in the bankruptcy proceeding. Case: 20-3434 Document: 28 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/29/2021 If the debtor or trustee is not participating in the appeal, this information must be provided by appellant. Not applicable. March 29, 2021 /s/ Corbin K. Barthold Counsel for TechFreedom Case: 20-3434 Document: 28 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/29/2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................................................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 5 THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE APPLIED STRICT SCRUTINY, FOUND NO THREAT UNDER SECTION 8(A), AND RULED IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER ........... 5 A. Watts (1969) and Gissel Packing (1969) Create Distinct Rules For “Political” Threats And “Labor-Relations” Threats ....................... 5 B. Post-1969 Supreme Court Decisions Make Clear That Free- Speech Distinctions Based On Content, Viewpoint, Or Speaker Are Subject To Strict Scrutiny .............................................................. 9 C. Had It Applied Strict Scrutiny, The Board’s Analysis Would Have Tracked Watts—Which Found No Threat ................................. 12 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 17 CERTIFICATE OF BAR MEMBERSHIP, COMPLIANCE WITH WORD- COUNT AND TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS, AND VIRUS CHECK .............. 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 19 i Case: 20-3434 Document: 28 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/29/2021 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES: Belcher Towing Co. v. NLRB, 726 F.2d 705 (11th Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 14 Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) ............................................................................................ 11 DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988) ............................................................................................ 15 Fisher v. Univ. of Texas at Austin, 570 U.S. 297 (2013) ............................................................................................ 12 Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61 (1946) ................................................................................................ 2 Intertape Polymer Corp. v. NLRB, 801 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 13, 15 J.P. Stevens Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 638 F.2d 676 (4th Cir. 1980) .............................................................................. 14 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. NLRB, 131 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 13 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) .............................................................................................. 6 NIFLA v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) ........................................................................................ 10 NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969) .....................................................................................passim ii Case: 20-3434 Document: 28 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/29/2021 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) NLRB v. Hasbro Indus., Inc., 672 F.2d 978 (1st Cir. 1982) ............................................................................... 14 NLRB v. IAB Local 229, 974 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2020) ........................................................................ 9, 11 NLRB v. Lovejoy Indus., Inc., 904 F.2d 397 (7th Cir. 1990) ........................................................................ 14, 15 R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) ...................................................................................... 10, 11 Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) ........................................................................................ 9, 10 United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929) .............................................................................................. 2 Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) .....................................................................................passim STATUTES: 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) ............................................................................................................ 2 § 158(c) ........................................................................................................... 3, 15 MISCELLANEOUS: Berin Szóka & Ashkhen Kazaryan, Section 230: An Introduction for Antitrust & Consumer Protection Practitioners, The Global Antitrust Institute Report on the Digital Economy (2020) ............................................................................. 1, 2 iii Case: 20-3434 Document: 28 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/29/2021 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) Comments of TechFreedom, Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, FCC Docket RM-11862 (Sept. 2, 2020) ............................................................... 1 Helen Raleigh, 3 Strategies For Dismantling Digital Totalitarianism In America, The Federalist (Oct. 28, 2020) .............................................................................. 1 Tristan Justice, Ben Domenech On Google: We’ve Been Warning About This Censorship For Years, The Federalist (June 21, 2020) ........................................ 2 iv Case: 20-3434 Document: 28 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/29/2021 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE* TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank based in Washington, D.C. It is dedicated to promoting technological progress that improves the human condition. It seeks to advance public policy that makes experimentation, entrepreneurship, and investment possible. Government over-regulation of online speech is a major threat to free expression, free association, and the open Internet. Accordingly, TechFreedom has defended websites’ right to moderate speech for themselves, and to be free of liability for others’ speech, under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. See, e.g., Comments of TechFreedom, Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, FCC Docket RM-11862, https://bit.ly/31XVlpe (Sept. 2, 2020). The petitioner, FDRLST Media, LLC, which publishes a website called The Federalist, does not share TechFreedom’s view about the importance of Section 230. See, e.g., Helen Raleigh, 3 Strategies For Dismantling Digital Totalitarianism In America, The Federalist, https://bit.ly/39EsXLH (Oct. 28, 2020). When Google threatened, in June 2020, to stop monetizing The Federalist through web advertising, TechFreedom criticized The Federalist’s position on Section 230, and defended Google’s right to invoke it. See Berin Szóka & Ashkhen * No party’s counsel authored any part of this brief. No one, apart from TechFreedom and its counsel, contributed money intended to fund the brief’s preparation or submission. All parties have consented to the brief’s being filed. 1 Case: 20-3434 Document: 28 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/29/2021 Kazaryan, Section 230: An Introduction for Antitrust & Consumer Protection Practitioners, The Global Antitrust Institute Report on the Digital Economy 1088- 92, https://bit.ly/2XQeyXq (2020). Google wanted to disassociate itself from derogatory statements made in The Federalist’s comments sections. See id. TechFreedom disagrees