US Supreme Court to Consider State Laws Regulating Social Media Companies, According to Reuters

By Andrew Chung

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the legality of state laws backed by Republicans in Texas and Florida, which limit the ability of social media companies to manage content deemed objectionable by those platforms.

The justices are set to hear two cases that challenge the state laws enacted in 2021, which technology industry groups claim violate the First Amendment rights to free speech. Lower courts have reached different conclusions on these laws, with some provisions of Florida’s law being struck down while Texas’s law was upheld.

The organizations challenging these laws include NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which represent major tech companies such as Meta Platforms, Google’s YouTube, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

CCIA President Matt Schruers praised the court’s decision to hear the case, stating, "It is high time that the Supreme Court resolves whether governments can force websites to publish dangerous content. Telling private websites they must give equal treatment to extremist hate isn’t just unwise; it is unconstitutional. We look forward to demonstrating that to the court."

Proponents of the laws argue that social media companies have been guilty of censorship, particularly targeting conservative viewpoints. Meanwhile, advocates for content moderation emphasize the importance of combating misinformation and limiting the spread of extremist ideologies.

The Biden administration has informed the justices that these state laws impose burdens on the rights of social media companies, arguing that when platforms edit and organize third-party speech for public presentation, they engage in conduct protected by the First Amendment.

This legal battle will test claims made by industry representatives that the First Amendment safeguards the editorial discretion of social media platforms and prevents the government from compelling companies to publish content against their wishes. The companies contend that without the ability to moderate content, their platforms would be inundated with spam, bullying, and hate speech.

Critics from the conservative side have pointed to incidents such as the suspension of then-President Donald Trump’s account on the platform previously known as Twitter following the January 6 Capitol riots, claiming it as a form of censorship. Trump’s account has since been reinstated under new ownership.

Upon signing the Texas law in 2021, Governor Greg Abbott remarked on what he described as a dangerous trend among social media companies to quiet conservative ideas and values. The Texas law prohibits major platforms with 50 million monthly active users from censoring users based on their viewpoints and allows users or the Texas attorney general to bring lawsuits to enforce this rule.

Florida’s law mandates that large platforms must "host some speech that they might otherwise prefer not to host," specifically prohibiting the censorship or banning of political candidates or journalistic organizations.

According to NetChoice’s litigation director, Chris Marchese, "Online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit. The internet is a vital platform for free expression and must remain free from government censorship."

Responses from officials in Florida and Texas were not immediately available.

Florida aims to revive its law following a ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that largely went against it. Meanwhile, the technology groups are appealing a decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the Texas law, a law the Supreme Court had previously blocked at an earlier stage.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the Florida and Texas cases in its upcoming nine-month term.