WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court On Monday, he questioned laws in Florida and Texas that sought to limit the ability of social media companies to monitor content based on the assumption that they negatively affect conservative speech.
platforms like Facebook and YouTubeRepresented by trade groups NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, known as CCIA, both laws violate the companies’ First Amendment rights to free speech by limiting their ability to choose the content they want to publish on their platforms. .
Various other tech companies, including Reddit, Discord, and Yelp, which regularly moderate user content, oppose the law.
After the first of two oral arguments on the Florida law, a majority of the justices appeared concerned that the measure infringes on the free speech rights of some problematic users by prohibiting major social media companies from restricting their speech.
“Why is this, you know, not a classic First Amendment violation of a state coming in and saying, ‘We’re not going to let you impose these kinds of restrictions?'” liberal Justice Elena Kagan asked.
Some justices have suggested that the law may have some legal application against other platforms it potentially covers, which could mean the court is reluctant to strike it down entirely.
“It’s very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff,” said conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Controversy over the Texas law continued Monday afternoon.
The laws come after Republican-led states banned Twitter, Facebook and others in 2021 after an attempt by former President Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 presidential election ended with his supporters storming the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. was done.
That was before Twitter was taken over by a billionaire the following year Elon Muskhe has allied with the platform’s conservative critics and allowed various banned users to return, including Trump.
Both laws seek to place limits on content moderation and require companies to provide individualized explanations to users when content is removed.
Florida law among other things, it prevents companies from banning public figures from running for political office and restricting “shadow bans”, thereby making certain user content more difficult to find by other users. The state claims that such actions are a form of censorship.
Texas law similarly prevents platforms from banning users for the opinions they express. Each law requires companies to disclose their moderation policies.
States are trying to equate social media companies with the telecommunications industry, which broadcasts speech but has no editorial input. These “common carriers” are heavily regulated by the government.
The Florida law “does little more than require platforms to follow common business practices to keep themselves open to all comers and content, which is how common carrier regulation has worked for centuries,” Attorney General Ashley Moody said in court filings. .
Trade groups highlight the differences between the telecom industry and social media platforms, noting that companies routinely use “editorial discretion” to improve user experience by limiting spam, trolling and hate speech, among other things.
Media groups, including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, are backing tech companies by calling the shots threatens freedom of speech more broadly.
They argue that the same logic adopted by states can be used against news organizations, movie studios and video game publishers.
Some tech commentators have pointed out that Musk’s actions after acquiring Twitter violated the law because it showed how moderation policies in many ways define the identity of the social media platform.
Conservatives now defend the newly named Xi, while liberals bitterly complain about what they see as the promotion of right-wing content.
“The origin story has been completely cut,” said Ari Cohn, a lawyer at TechFreedom, a think tank that opposes the laws.
Nevertheless, President Joe Biden’s administration maintains a political edge by providing brief information support legal challenges and former President Donald Trump supports the laws.
In May 2022, after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans refused to stay the Texas law, the Supreme Court entered, prevents it from taking effect. Four of the nine judges then said the court should not have intervened at this stage.
The Florida measure was blocked by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, prompting the state to appeal to the Supreme Court.
A legal question that is not at hand, but lurks in the background, is the scope of immunity that Internet companies have for content posted by their users. Court last year bypassed decision on this issue.
Here are the challenges to Texas and Florida law a number of legal questions Regarding social media, which the Supreme Court is currently fighting.