Center for Democracy & Technology’s Post

❓ WHOSE FREE SPEECH IS MORE IMPORTANT -- SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS' OR THE PLATFORMS' USERS ❓ As you may know, in 2021 Florida and Texas both enacted state law prohibiting social media platforms from removing content or users based on viewpoint (including political perspectives). Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals then barred enforcement of the Florida law while the Eleventh Circuit allowed the Texas law to stay on the books. Bringing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, industry associations argued social media platforms' content moderation decisions are protected speech activity that cannot be controlled by the government. Florida and Texas, on the other hand, alleged the laws were enacted to protect the free speech rights of the platforms' users -- allowing them to pick and choose what speech they experience online. ❓ Whose free speech is more important or protected? According to the U.S. Supreme Court... and almost 100 pages of opinion later... the Justices are not really sure... In a unanimous 9-0 decision released today, the U.S. Supreme Court sent back challenges to these Florida and Texas laws. The Court found that the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits failed to conduct the necessary First Amendment analysis. Justice Kagan emphasized the need for courts to determine the full scope of a law's applications, comparing its constitutional and unconstitutional uses. To be continued.... #socialmediacensorship #USSC #firstamendment

"Exciting developments at SCOTUS! The constitutionality of Texas and Florida laws regulating social media content will be argued on February 26. The ruling could have far-reaching implications for social media regulation and other publishing industries. Stay tuned for updates. #SCOTUS #SocialMediaRegulation #NetChoice #LegalTech"

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases—NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice—that address whether Florida and Texas can prohibit social media platforms from moderating content posted by their users.  These laws violate bedrock First Amendment principles and would effectively allow extreme content to thrive on mainstream platforms. For example, under the Texas law, major social media platforms would be prohibited from removing or even limiting the visibility of white nationalist or racist content. Under the Florida law, platforms would not be able to address harmful conspiracy theories such as those spread by so-called journalist Alex Jones claiming that the children and parents murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary were actors. The Netchoice cases arose from the claim that conservatives are inappropriately censored online, despite considerable evidence disproving that theory. In reality, these cases are states' responses to Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube removing then-President Donald Trump from their platforms following the insurrectionist assault on the Capitol on January 6.  If permitted to stand by the court, these laws would upend the meaning of First Amendment freedom of speech and could establish the entire internet as a haven for extremism. 

Crowell & Moring’s Jacob Canter and Joanna Rosen Forster explore the impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in the NetChoice cases. Read more in Law360:

Crowell & Moring’s Jacob Canter and Joanna Rosen Forster explore the impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in the NetChoice cases. Read more in Law360:

Crowell & Moring’s Jacob Canter and Joanna Rosen Forster explore the impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in the NetChoice cases. Read more in Law360:

Crowell & Moring’s Jacob Canter and Joanna Rosen Forster explore the impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in the NetChoice cases. Read more in Law360:

Crowell & Moring’s Jacob Canter and Joanna Rosen Forster explore the impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in the NetChoice cases. Read more in Law360:

Crowell & Moring’s Jacob Canter and Joanna Rosen Forster explore the impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in the NetChoice cases. Read more in Law360:

Crowell & Moring’s Jacob Canter and Joanna Rosen Forster explore the impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in the NetChoice cases. Read more in Law360: