The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that it’s within the First Amendment rights of social media companies to moderate content on their platforms.
This ruling is triggered by two cases – Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton. The cases have now been sent back to lower courts for further review.
The cases are based on the laws passed by Texas and Florida that aim to prevent social media companies from restricting or removing unwanted content.
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that content moderation falls under the First Amendment rights of social media companies – a partial victory for the companies.
The decision came from a legal battle between popular social media companies, represented by NetChoice, and the states of Texas and Florida.
What Do The States Want?
The states of Texas and Florida want to impose laws that would prevent social media companies from restricting posts based on their content. For instance, they want people to be able to post freely about controversial topics like elections and COVID-19.
Their argument is that social media platforms are just a medium for communication. And just as legacy telephone companies were required to carry all calls without discrimination, social media companies should also have to allow all posts without discrimination.
They further added that when social media platforms impose rules, they are basically deciding who gets to speak and who does. This violates the First Amendment rights of US citizens.
Social Media Companies’ Response
The companies in response to this said that these social media apps are not public forums. They are private and have every right to decide the rules for conduct within their platform.
They also argued that their right to create such guidelines for their sites is protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of speech free from government interference.
Court’s View
So once this issue went to court, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals supported the decision of a lower court and concluded that the Florida law was unconstitutional. Social media companies were well within their rights to filter content as per their internal guidelines.
On the other hand, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that it was not the platform’s speech that was in question here but its algorithm that controlled platform behavior.
This algorithm is not protected by the First Amendment. Hence, it reversed a ruling by the lower court that was against the Texas law.
So What Happens Now?
In a ruling passed on July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court sent back the two cases – Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, to the 11th and 5th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, respectively.
The Supreme Court also criticized the lower courts for failing to consider the full force of the laws’ applications because it will not just apply to social media services but also to a bunch of other virtual platforms.
Florida’s laws define a social media platform as having either 100 million monthly users or $100 million in annual gross revenue.
Texas has a similar definition but the number is capped at 50 million users.
The Supreme Court feels that these are too broad and will interfere with other services like Gmail, Venmo, and Etsy.
Last but not least, the Supreme Court also reminded the lower courts to fully understand what the Constitution says about government interference with private speech before going forward with the analysis.
Naturally, the plaintiffs were not happy with this ruling. For example, in Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton shared his displeasure through a post on X.
‘I will keep fighting for our law that protects Texans’ voice. No American should be silenced by Big Tech oligarchs.’ – Ken Paxton
A similar lawsuit was also filed against the US government by Louisiana, Missouri, and other social media users, accusing the State of violating citizen’s rights in the First Amendment by removing social media posts.
Whatever happens next, one thing is for sure, this isn’t the last we are hearing from cases like these.
The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors.
>>> Read full article>>>
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source : TechReport – https://techreport.com/news/supreme-court-content-moderation-doesnt-violate-first-amendment/