The US Supreme Court has cited two state laws On Monday (July 1), a petition challenging a law designed to regulate social media platforms was withdrawn in lower courts, citing that the First Amendment protects these companies from government interference in their content feeds. However, the court did not rule out the possibility of upholding some elements of these laws.
trial—Moody Vs. Netchoice and NetChoice v. Paxton – arising from Texas and Florida regulations aimed at forcing social media platforms to host a wider range of user opinions. These laws were enacted after several platforms banned former President Donald Trump for violating their rules against promoting violence following the events of January 6, 2021.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her summation that “the action must be done consistent with the First Amendment.”
Amendment that doesn’t go on vacation when social media is involved.”
All justices agreed with the decision, although there were several concurring opinions as well. Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with portions of the majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote concurring opinions, with both Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joining Alito’s opinion.
Why did social media platforms file a lawsuit over freedom of speech?
The main focus of arguments in these cases was on how the laws only affected curated feeds of major social media platforms, such as Facebook’s News Feed, meaning that the platforms were challenging the laws because they restricted their control over content curation.
Technology advocacy organization NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association filed the suit, arguing that the laws violate platforms’ constitutional rights to make editorial decisions about the content they allow or ban.
However, Justice Kagan wrote: “[The] The question in such a case is whether the unconstitutional applications of a law outweigh its constitutional applications. To make that decision, the Court must determine the entire set of applications of the law, evaluate which are constitutional and which are not, and compare them to one another. No Court has conducted that necessary inquiry.”
The judges overruled previous rulings by the 11th and 5th Circuit appellate courts and provided guidelines for lower courts to evaluate the constitutionality of these laws. The laws came after complaints from conservative politicians in both states who accused major tech companies of bias against conservative viewpoints. The Supreme Court was tasked with making the final decision on social media regulation due to differing rulings on the validity of the laws by appellate courts in each state.
“Today, we overrule both verdicts for reasons independent of the First Amendment merits,” Justice Elena Kagan said in the majority opinion.
The Knight Institute comments on the Supreme Court’s decision #NetChoice Cases involving Florida and Texas social media laws. See our statement on today’s ruling @Jamil Jaffer Below https://t.co/sOGyBMCS7s pic.twitter.com/pHbXxaxtRt
— Knight First Amendment Institute (@knightcolumbia) July 1, 2024
Kagan’s majority opinion #NetChoice It’s complicated, but it’s also refreshingly frank about the heart #first Amendment Issue: “The state may not interfere with the speech of private actors to advance its own vision of ideological balance.” https://t.co/hk8K4eI9IY
— Dr. Mary Anne Franks (@ma_franks) July 1, 2024
Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute said the decision was “carefully and thoughtfully.” Dr. Mary Anne Franks, a law professor at George Washington University, said it was “refreshingly clear.”
Featured Image: Canva
supreme-court-sends-social-media-regulation-laws-back-to-lower-courts
