Supreme Court keeps hold on Texas and Florida efforts to limit how social media platforms regulate user content
Judges And returned the cases to the lower courts. In challenges from corporate trade associations.
While the details vary, both laws are intended to address conservative complaints that social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their views, especially regarding the political right. These cases are among many in which justices are grappling with standards of free speech in the digital age.
The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter, now X, to block then-President Donald Trump over his posts about January 6, 2021 attackIn the US Capitol Building by His supporters.
Trade associations representing the companies have filed lawsuits in federal court, alleging that the laws violate the platforms’ speech rights. One federal appeals court struck down the Florida law, while another court upheld the Texas law. but They were both waiting Awaiting the outcome in the Supreme Court.
In a statement when he signed the bill into law in Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis said it would serve as a “protection against the Silicon Valley elite.”
When Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed the law, he said it was necessary to protect free speech in what he called the new public square. Social media platforms “are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely — but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative views and ideas. This is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas,” Abbott said.
But a lot has changed since then. Elon Musk bought Twitter, and in addition to changing its name, he eliminated the teams focused on content moderation, and welcomed back many users who had previously been banned for hate speech and used the site to spread conspiracy theories.
President Joe Biden’s administration has sided with the challengers, though it has cautioned the court against seeking a narrow ruling that preserves the ability of governments to impose regulations to ensure competition, preserve data privacy and protect consumers. Trump’s lawyers have filed a brief in the Florida case urging the Supreme Court to uphold the state law.
These cases are among several that judges have taken up over the past year involving social media platforms, including one ruled last week in which the court dismissed a lawsuit by Louisiana, Missouri Other parties accuse federal officials of pressuring social media companies to silence conservative views.
During arguments in February, the justices appeared inclined to block the laws from taking effect. Several justices then suggested that they viewed the platforms as more akin to newspapers, which have broad free speech protections, and not like telephone companies, known as common carriers, which are subject to broader regulation.
But Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas seemed more willing to embrace the states’ arguments. Thomas raised the idea that companies seek constitutional protections in order to “censor other speech.” Alito also linked the platforms’ content oversight to censorship.
The justices also expressed concern about an overly broad provision that could affect companies that are not the primary targets of the laws, including e-commerce sites like Uber and Etsy and email and messaging services.
