WASHINGTON (AP) — supreme court They agreed Friday to decide whether state laws seeking to regulate Facebook, TikTok, X and other social media platforms violate the Constitution.
a judge will review enacted law It was signed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by the Republican governors of Florida and Texas. Although the details differ, both laws aim to prevent social media companies from censoring users based on their views.
The court’s announcement, made three days before the start of its new term, comes as justices continue to grapple with how to apply laws enacted at the dawn of the digital age, or even earlier, to the online world. It was conducted.
The justices have already agreed to decide whether public officials can block comments on their critics’ social media accounts, an issue that has come up before. Incidents involving then-President Donald Trump. The court dismissed the lawsuit when Trump’s presidential term ends in January 2021.
Separately, the high court could also consider lower court orders restricting communications between executive branch officials and social media companies about controversial online posts.
On Friday, the justices added a total of 12 cases to be heard over the winter. They include:
— Controversy over the FBI’s no-fly list. The appeal came from the Biden administration in a case involving an Oregon man who was once on the list but removed years ago. A federal appeals court said he could continue the case because the FBI never denied his initial participation.
— A copyright lawsuit involving a hit song by hip-hop artist Flo Rida in the 1980s that featured someone else’s song. A music publisher sued for copyright infringement over the 2008 song “In the Air” is challenging a lower court’s ruling against it.
— Petition by southeast Texas landowners. They are seeking compensation from the state for effectively taking their property. Their lawsuit alleges that a successful project to upgrade Interstate 10 and make it passable in inclement weather resulted in severe flooding on the property during heavy rains.
The new social media lawsuit follows conflicting rulings by two appellate courts, one upholding a Texas law and the other striking down a Florida law. By a 5-4 vote, the justices put the Texas law on hold while litigation continues.
But the adjustment was unusual. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett granted an emergency request from two technology industry groups that challenged the law in federal court. I voted to accept it.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch would have allowed the law to survive. “Social media platforms have changed the way people communicate with each other and get their news,” Alito wrote in a dissenting opinion.
Proponents of the bill, including Republican elected officials in several states who have taken similar measures, argue that social media companies have a generally liberal outlook and are more sensitive to ideas outside that perspective, especially those on the political right. I have tried to portray myself as hostile.
The tech industry warned that the law would prevent platforms from removing extremism and hate speech.
“Online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit,” Chris Marchese, litigation director at industry group NetChoice, said in a statement. “The Internet is an important platform for freedom of expression and must be free from government censorship. We are confident the courts will agree.”
Although both sides agreed that the High Court should intervene, the justices offered no explanation and postponed considering the case.
The justices had other social media issues last year, including a plea that the court did not accept in mitigation. Legal protection for high-tech companies For posts by users.