The Supreme Court on Monday rejected challenges to Florida and Texas laws that limit how large social media companies can moderate user content.
The bills would require big tech companies like Twitter and Facebook to host third-party communications, while prohibiting them from blocking or removing users’ posts based on their political views.
In a unanimous decision, the court said the lower courts did not properly analyze the First Amendment issues at issue in the cases. As a result, the cases will be sent back to the respective Circuit Courts of Appeals.
“Today, we reverse both decisions for reasons unrelated to First Amendment principles, because neither court of appeals adequately considered the ostensible nature of NetChoice’s challenges. They addressed the issues the parties focused on primarily, and the parties argued the cases primarily as if the law applied only to the curated feeds offered by the largest and most representative social media platforms, as if each case was an applicable challenge brought by Facebook protesting its loss of control over the content of its News Feed,” the court wrote.
Republican Senators Ask Supreme Court to Rein in Big Tech Companies’ Content Censorship That Defies “Logic”
Sprinklers water the lawn in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on the morning of Monday, April 29, 2024. (Getty Images)
“But the arguments before this Court have made clear that these laws may apply to, and have different effects on, other types of websites and apps, which may be problematic in a facial challenge even if the challenge is based on the First Amendment,” the Court added.
There were no dissenting opinions, and five justices filed separate concurring or ruling opinions, including Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas.
During roughly four hours of oral arguments in February, the justices considered whether to issue a blanket ruling on state laws’ impact on the First Amendment, or whether to take a more limited approach that would allow lower courts to reconsider how content moderation policies are applied.
The Florida law prohibits social media platforms from censoring, prioritizing or so-called “shadow bans” “based on content.” The Texas law is broader,
January 6th: Rioters, Abortion and Gun Rights: A Look at Landmark Cases the Supreme Court Will Hear in 2024
Florida’s social media law prohibits social media platforms from censoring, prioritizing or so-called “shadow bans” “based on content.” (Matt Cardy/Getty Images)
It would also have prevented the “intentional exclusion from office” of a candidate because of material posted by or about that candidate.
Both Florida and Texas will require companies to notify users when content has been changed or edited, along with the reasons why.
Republican governors ask Supreme Court to strip content moderation from big tech companies in landmark First Amendment case
Supreme Court members Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh pose in the Justices’ Chambers before Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s formal swearing-in ceremony on September 30, 2022 in Washington, DC. (U.S. Supreme Court Collection via Getty Images)
Industry groups representing major tech companies argue the law infringes on their free speech rights to determine what content meets their policies, and that forums should not be an unrestricted haven for offensive or dangerous speech, such as school bullying, harassment, terrorist ideology, racial hatred, medical misinformation or voter fraud.
The law was supported by Republicans in Congress and more than a dozen Republican-led states that filed amicus briefs in the case.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) said the platforms want to preserve the liability protections Congress granted them for the content on their sites, but at the same time they want the power to censor content at will, citing First Amendment freedoms.
Click here to get the FOX News app
“Despite decades of asserting this position, today technology platforms are taking the exact opposite position: they say that content hosting and curation decisions are their own business. teeth “It is in fact expressive and expressive enough to qualify for First Amendment protection,” the lawmakers argued.
Read the Supreme Court’s full ruling below: App users click here.
