The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether Florida and Texas can prohibit large social media companies from deleting posts based on their views, underscoring the strong First Amendment. An important ruling is set to be made on how it applies to technology platforms.
Supporters of the law say the measure is meant to counter so-called Silicon Valley censorship, saying major platforms have removed posts expressing conservative views on issues such as the coronavirus pandemic and allegations of election fraud. claims it is necessary. In particular, it opposed the decision by some platforms to ban President Donald J. Trump from entering the country after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Two industry groups, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, challenged the law, arguing that the First Amendment prevents the government from dictating to private companies whether and how to spread speech. was chanting.
The court’s decision to hear the case was not surprising. In both cases, both sides urged the justices to do so, citing an apparent conflict between the two federal appeals courts. One ruled against Florida’s law and the other upheld Texas’ law.
In his decision upholding the Texas law, Judge Andrew S. Oldham said the two states’ approaches were similar but not identical. “To generalize a little bit,” Florida law “prohibits all forms of censorship against some speakers,” whereas Texas law “prohibits censorship of any kind against some speakers,” while Texas law prohibits “all Some censorship is prohibited.
Gov. Ron DeSantis, now a Republican presidential candidate, said in a statement upon signing the Florida bill that the law’s purpose is to promote conservative views. “If big tech censors enforce inconsistent rules to discriminate in favor of Silicon Valley’s dominant ideology, they will now be held accountable,” he said. .
The Texas law applies to social media platforms with more than 50 million monthly active users, including Facebook, YouTube, and X, formerly known as Twitter. It doesn’t seem to extend to smaller platforms that appeal to conservatives, and sites that specialize in news, sports, entertainment, and other information not primarily generated by users.
The sites in question are largely prohibited from removing posts based on the views expressed on them, with the exception of child sexual exploitation, incitement to criminal activity, and some threats of violence.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta nearly unanimously upheld a preliminary injunction against the Florida law last year.
“Social media platforms exercise inherently expressive editorial judgment,” Judge Kevin C. Newsom wrote to the committee. “If a platform removes users or posts, deprioritizes content in audience feeds or search results, or sanctions violations of community standards, the platform is protected by the First Amendment. You are engaging in an activity.”
Months later, a divided three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans reversed a lower court’s order blocking the Texas law.
“Today, we reject the idea that corporations have an unfettered First Amendment right to censor what people say,” Judge Oldham wrote.
He added: “Platforms are not newspapers. Their censorship is not speech.”
The Supreme Court has already faced the Texas case and temporarily blocked the law last year while an appeal proceeds. The vote was 5 to 4, resulting in an unusual coalition of opponents.
The court’s three most conservative justices, Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas, and Neil M. Gorsuch, said they would have left the law in place and that the issue was They submitted an opinion that the Supreme Court would rule on the matter because it is novel and serious. I’ll consider it someday.
“Social media platforms have changed the way people communicate with each other and get their news,” Justice Alito wrote in his dissent. “At issue is a landmark Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media companies to shape public debate about the important issues of the day.”
Justice Alito ruled against the argument that social media companies have the same First Amendment-protected editorial discretion that newspapers and other traditional publishers enjoy. He added that he was skeptical.
“It is far from clear how existing precedents from before the Internet era should apply to large social media companies,” he wrote.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan voted for the dissenters, but did not adopt their reasoning or offer her own reasons.
The First Amendment generally prohibits government restrictions on speech based on content or viewpoint, but it does allow private companies to say and communicate what they want.
In a recent Supreme Court brief, Texas lawyers argued that the law at issue does not apply to platform speech because “no reasonable viewer can attribute a user’s speech to the platform itself.” He said it would not affect the freedom of the people. “Given that platforms can transmit virtually unlimited content, requiring platforms to provide equal access to users regardless of viewpoint does nothing to shut down their own speech,” the brief said. It is of no use,” he added.
“The platform is a 21st century telegraph and telephone company, a descendant of traditional telecommunications carriers,” state attorneys wrote in an earlier brief. In other words, companies must, in principle, accept all customers, they write.
The Biden administration filed briefs in August asking the justices to consider Moody v. NetChoice, No. 22-277 and NetChoice v. Paxton, No. 22-555, and rule in favor of the companies. I asked.
“When a social media platform selects, edits, and arranges third-party speech for presentation to the public, it engages in activity protected by the First Amendment,” Attorney General Elizabeth B. – Preloger wrote to the administration and added: Even if the collected audio is almost entirely provided by users, the selection and selection of content that users see is inherently expressive. ”