The US Supreme Court is grappling with applying free-speech principles to the evolving digital landscape, as it reviews laws backed by Republicans that could severely limit the editorial discretion of the world’s largest social media platforms. Read more
Hearing arguments last Monday in Washington, justices from all along the court’s ideological spectrum expressed reluctance to wholly invalidate the new laws from Texas and Florida, which trade groups representing Meta Platforms Inc.’s Facebook and Alphabet Inc.’s Google are seeking. However, they also voiced concern about the implementation of the laws’ core provisions in terms of decisions over managing hate speech and misinformation, and blocking non-compliant users.
These conflicting tendencies leave the court uncertain about handling cases that Justice Amy Coney Barrett described as filled with “a bunch of landmines” of potentially unforeseen consequences. The court is likely to issue a ruling by June. For now, though, the judges may postpone the decision about the laws’ fate, sending them back for reconsideration by lower courts.
Social media companies are arguing that these laws would impose burdensome requirements and risk their sites becoming overrun with spam and online harassment. On the other hand, supporters of the laws, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Texas Governor Greg Abbott, assert that the laws will protect against discrimination towards conservative voices.
These regulations were partially an answer to the actions of some platforms to exclude former President Donald Trump following the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021. Justice Clarence Thomas offered support for these measures, stating multiple times that social media platforms are engaged in censorship.
The Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily impeded most of Florida’s law, suspecting a violation of the First Amendment, while the 5th Circuit in New Orleans upheld the Texas law, which is also currently on hold.
Reflecting the laws’ significance and potential impact, the legal discourse is focusing not only on substantial issues, such as whether companies like Google or Uber Technologies Inc.’s ride-sharing service might be subject to anti-discrimination provisions, but also on procedural considerations, such as strategy related to facial challenges which generally necessitate a litigant to demonstrate that all parts of the law are unconstitutional.
Further information on the Florida case, Moody v. NetChoice, can be found here, while details on the Texas case, NetChoice v. Paxton, are available here.