WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday questioned Florida and Texas laws that seek to impose limits on social media companies' ability to moderate content based on the premise that they devalue conservative speech.
Platforms such as Facebook and YouTube, represented by trade groups NetChoice and the Computer Communications Industry Association, known as CCIA, have argued that the laws limit companies' ability to choose the content they want, thereby undercutting companies' First Amendment rights. It alleges that it violates the right to free speech. Publish on the platform.
A variety of other tech companies that routinely moderate user content have opposed the law, including Reddit, Discord, and Yelp.
After the first of two oral arguments on the Florida law, a majority of the justices ruled that the bill would prohibit large social media companies from restricting the speech of some problematic users. They seemed concerned that it would infringe on the free speech rights of major social media companies.
“Why isn't it a classic First Amendment violation for a state to come in and say, 'We're not going to allow you to enforce those restrictions?'” liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote. Asked.
However, some judges have suggested that the law may legitimately apply to other platforms covered by the law, which could lead to courts striking down the law entirely. This suggests that it may not be possible to reach that point.
“It's pretty hard to separate the wheat from the chaff here,” said conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Debate over the Texas law has been ongoing since Monday afternoon.
The law comes after former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election ended with his supporters storming the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. It was enacted by Republican-led states in 2021 in response to a ban on the law.
This was before Twitter was taken over by billionaire Elon Musk the following year. Mr. Musk had teamed up with the platform's conservative critics to allow various banned users, including Mr. Trump, to return.
Both laws aim to impose limits on content moderation and require companies to provide users with personalized explanations when content is removed.
Florida law prohibits companies from banning public figures from running for office and limits “shadowbanning,” which makes it harder for other users to find certain user content. The state claims that this practice is a form of censorship.
Texas law similarly prohibits platforms from banning users based on their expressed opinions. Each law requires companies to disclose their moderation policies.
States are trying to equate social media companies with the telecommunications industry, which conveys speech but has no editorial opinion. These “common carriers” are strictly regulated by the government.
Florida law “simply requires platforms to adhere to the common business practice of remaining open to all visitors and content, and that carrier regulations have been in place for centuries.” This is how it has worked for decades,” state Attorney General Ashley Moody said in court documents. .
Industry groups point to differences between the telecommunications industry and social media platforms, saying companies routinely exercise “editorial discretion” to enhance user experience, including limiting spam, trolling and hateful rhetoric. He pointed out that he was doing it.
Media groups such as the Reporters Committee for a Free Press have backed tech companies, saying the law threatens freedom of speech more broadly.
The same arguments used by states could be applied to news organizations, movie studios and video game publishers, they argue.
Some technology commentators say Musk's actions since the Twitter acquisition are behind the law, as he has shown in various ways how moderation policies define the social media platform's identity. They point out that this undermines the theoretical basis.
Conservatives are now defending the newly named X, while liberals are bitterly unhappy about what they see as the promotion of right-wing content.
“The story of its origins is completely undermined,” said Ali Cohn, a lawyer at TechFreedom, a think tank that opposes the law.
Nevertheless, the case retains political advantages, with President Joe Biden's administration filing briefs supporting the legal challenge and former President Donald Trump supporting the law.
In May 2022, the Supreme Court intervened and blocked the Texas law from taking effect after the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to put the Texas law on hold. And four of the nine justices said the court should not have intervened at that stage.
Florida's action was blocked by the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, prompting the state to appeal to the Supreme Court.
An underlying legal issue that is not present in this case is the liability that Internet companies have for content posted by users. Last year, the court avoided ruling on this issue.
The challenges to the Texas and Florida laws are among several social media-related legal issues the Supreme Court is currently grappling with.
