Eric Goldman was quoted on Reclaim the Net about a Washington State Supreme Court ruling that YouTubers are not a member of the “News Media” and therefore do not qualify for press privilege; by Real Clear Politics and WND.com on Facebook’s decision to change its policy of censoring any posts elevating the theory that COVID-19 might have been manmade;  MediaPost about Ohio Attorney General asking a state judge to declare Google’s search engine a common carrier and prohibit the company from prioritizing its services or products in the results; by MediaPost about a recent federal ruling against the FTC in favor of 1-800; and by Coda Story on the global implications of changing Section 230.

Professor Goldman spoke to KRXI news about Trump legal action against the social media sites that have banned him. The interview was also broadcast on KPIX (CBS), WTOP – Washington D.C. Radio, and over 20 others. Print: The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, Bloomberg News, ABC News, The East Bay Times, The Mercury News, Yahoo News, Yahoo Finance, and over 200 other outlets. Professor Goldman also was guest on the Big Tech Ticket podcast, discussing Section 230 and the liability tech companies should face (or not) for the content hosted on their platform; spoke to USA Today about how a federal judge blocked a Florida law that would penalize social media companies for barring the speech of politicians; and to MediaPost about Amason trying to disqualify Federal Trade Commission head Lina Khan from investigating or prosecuting antitrust actions against Amazon due to her prior advocacy against the tech company.

Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, told USA TODAY that the Florida law was bound to draw legal challenges as some of the new law’s provisions are “obviously unconstitutional.”

“The Supreme Court has made it clear that publishers have the freedom to pick and choose what content they want to publish, and the bill blatantly seeks to strip publishers of that freedom,” he said. “Florida residents should expect better from their legislators, and now they see their tax dollars spent defending an indefensible bill that never should have passed.”