WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court grappled with thorny free speech questions Monday as it considered Florida and Texas laws that seek to impose limits on social media companies' ability to moderate content.
After nearly four hours of oral arguments, the majority of the justices ruled that there are free speech issues in prohibiting platforms from banning or restricting access to some problematic users. It seems that he is concerned about this.
But justices across the ideological spectrum expressed concerns about the power and influence of major social media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook, and questioned whether they should block the law altogether.
The industry groups NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (known as the CCIA) say both laws undermine companies' First Amendment rights to speech by limiting their ability to choose the content they want published on their platforms. They claim that it violates the right to freedom.
The First Amendment's free speech protections apply to government actions, not those of private entities, including corporations.
“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, referring to Florida law's content moderation provisions.
As Chief Justice John Roberts put it, companies are not bound by the First Amendment, so they can “discriminate against certain groups they don't like.”
But some judges have argued that the law may have legitimate application to other platforms and services, including messaging applications, in which case it could be stopped before courts can crack down on them. He suggested that there was.
The final ruling could lead to further litigation in lower courts over whether the law should be blocked. Both are currently on hold.
“It's pretty hard to separate the wheat from the chaff here,” said conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch.
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 “carriers” are heavily regulated by the government and have nothing to do with free speech issues.
As arguments progress, justices are concerned that the law could extend far beyond traditional social media giants to include companies like Uber and Etsy, which allow some user-generated content. That was clear.
Similarly, some social media companies, such as Facebook, allow direct messaging. Google, the owner of YouTube, one of the largest technology companies, operates the Gmail email service.
The law's application to direct messaging and email services does not raise similar free speech concerns, and judges appear reluctant to block the law entirely.
“I'm a little nervous,” said conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
The case has a political dimension, with President Joe Biden's administration filing briefs in support of 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.
The challenges to the Texas and Florida laws are among several social media-related legal issues the Supreme Court is currently grappling with.
A legal issue lurking in the background, but not present in this case, is the legal immunity Internet companies have long enjoyed over user-posted content. Last year, the court avoided ruling on this issue.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito appeared sympathetic to states' efforts to regulate companies, but said the liability shield is premised on giving users the freedom to post anything they want on social media. He suggested that media companies were guilty of hypocrisy for adopting the free speech argument now. they want.
He paraphrased the companies' argument: “When you want to escape state regulation, that's a message. But when you want to escape responsibility, that's not a message.”
