The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide challenges to laws in Texas and Florida that would limit the ability of platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X to moderate content – entering into a deeply partisan fray that could change the way millions of Americans interact with social media during an election year.
The state laws at issue in the cases, both of which have been temporarily blocked by federal courts, severely limit the ability of social media companies to kick users off their platforms or remove individual posts −
even if those posts spread a foreign government’s misinformation or provide false medical advice. Trade groups representing the nation’s social media companies say the state laws would “transform speech on the internet as we know it today.”
“These cases could completely reshape the digital public sphere,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute. “It’s difficult to think of any other recent First Amendment cases in which the stakes were so high.”
But Republican lawmakers in Texas and Florida − including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination − argue that social media companies have been too quick to throttle conservative viewpoints and too opaque in explaining how they decide what to remove.
That argument reached a fever pitch in 2021, when Twitter and other major platforms suspended former President Donald Trump after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Trade groups representing the companies say the laws would radically transform social media, making it impossible to cull foreign propaganda, harassment, and misinformation. The First Amendment, they say, bars the government from compelling private entities – from newspapers to social networks – from publishing or not publishing content it favors.
“It is high time that the Supreme Court resolves whether governments can force websites to publish dangerous content,” said Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association.
“Telling private websites they must give equal treatment to extremist hate isn’t just unwise, it is unconstitutional, and we look forward to demonstrating that to the court.”
