In a decision that vehemently upheld the free speech rights of social media platforms, the Supreme Court on Monday put on hold the attempts by Florida and Texas to restrict the ways in which Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube, and other similar sites govern user-generated material.
Just like newspapers, platforms should be shielded from government interference in deciding what to allow or omit in their space, according to Justice Elena Kagan's dissenting opinion. "The principle does not change because the curated compilation has gone from the physical to the virtual world," Kagan said in an opinion joined by five justices. The verdict was unanimous among the nine justices.
As a result of the firms' trade groups' extensive objections, the justices sent the cases back to lower courts for further proceedings.
While the specifics differ, the goal of both statutes was to put an end to conservatives' long-running claims that social media platforms were biased against the left and engaged in political speech suppression. These issues are just a few of several this term that have the justices mulling about how to define free expression in the internet era.
Republican governors in Florida and Texas signed the bills into law in the months after Facebook and Twitter (now X) decided to deactivate then-President Trump's account due to tweets he made in response to his supporters' assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Companies' trade groups took legal action by suing the federal government, arguing that the regulations infringed upon the free expression rights of the platforms. In a split decision, a federal appeals court affirmed a Texas legislation and knocked down a Florida one. The Supreme Court's decision, however, put a stay on both.
First Amendment scholar and professor at Notre Dame Law School Richard W. Garnett noted that the cases are complex, but that the justices were unanimous on two points:
Not only does the First Amendment safeguard our speech, but it also shields our silence, non-speech, and non-endorsement. In other words, editorial judgment is part of the free speech. It makes no difference whether the speaker is an individual or a major media corporation, he said. "Second, it is not acceptable for the government to control speakers in order to create a more diverse or better marketplace of ideas," the statement said. It is ultimately up to us to decide what is available in that market.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis called the bill "protection against the Silicon Valley elites" in a statement he released upon signing it into law.
To preserve free expression in the "new public square," as Texas Governor Greg Abbott put it, the bill was necessary. Abbott expressed concern about the trend of social media corporations attempting to censor conservative perspectives and ideas, stating that although these platforms "are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely," the trend is concerning. We will not tolerate it in Texas; it is wrong.
However, a lot has transpired in that time. Under Elon Musk's ownership, Twitter underwent a rebranding, lost personnel dedicated to content moderation, let back several individuals previously banned for hate speech and conspiracy theories, and more.
The presidential administration of Joe Biden supported the plaintiffs in their lawsuit, but it urged the court to reach a limited decision that upheld the power of governments to regulate in order to safeguard consumer interests, data privacy, and competitiveness. Attorneys for Trump requested the Supreme Court to maintain the Florida statute in a brief they submitted in the case.
Many people saw the decision as a win for free expression.
Attorney Vera Eidelman of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project argued that the protection of the right to free speech and the ability to access information online hinges on the court's acknowledgment that the government cannot manipulate social media to impose its own vision of acceptable online speech. "The protection of everyone's right to express themselves and access information on the internet depends on the court's acknowledgment that the government cannot manipulate social media to impose its own idea of how online speech should appear."
Free Press senior counsel Nora Benavidez stated that although the ruling "rests on procedural grounds," Justice Kagan's detailed opinion for the Court makes it crystal clear why the laws in Florida and Texas will never pass First Amendment muster. I think that is fantastic.
Academic director of Penn Carey Law School's Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition Gus Hurwitz called it a "bumpy win." Both cases were vacated and sent back to be "more fully developed," he said, since the justices were "clearly frustrated" that the issue was presented to them as a facial challenge, in which the plaintiff contends that the legislation is unconstitutional.
"The state of Texas disapproves of the platforms' content selection and moderation practices and wants them to develop a new expressive product that reflects its values and priorities," states five justices who have signed on to a direct statement. Texas cannot mandate such a choice, according to Hurwitz, because of the First Amendment. "If Texas and Florida go ahead with these statutes, it is hard to see how this will not affect the final decision of the case. It also shows that these statutes will have a bumpy ride."
Just last week, the court rejected a case brought by parties from Missouri, Louisiana, and elsewhere that accused social media companies of being pressured by federal officials to censor conservative viewpoints. This case is just one of several that the justices have dealt with in the last year involving social media platforms.
During their February arguments, the justices gave the impression that they were leaning toward blocking the legislation' implementation. At the time, several justices hinted that they saw the platforms more like newspapers, which have extensive free-speech rights, than like common carriers, the entities that are more vulnerable to regulation, such as telephone companies.
Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, however, gave the impression that they were more inclined to accept the arguments put out by the states. Companies are reportedly trying to get constitutional protection for "censoring other speech," a concept that Thomas brought up. For his part, Alito likened the platforms' content control policies to suppression.
Online marketplaces like Etsy and Uber as well as email and messaging services were among the companies that the judges were concerned would be unintentionally impacted by an overly expansive decision.
Just like newspapers, platforms should be shielded from government interference in deciding what to allow or omit in their space, according to Justice Elena Kagan's dissenting opinion. "The principle does not change because the curated compilation has gone from the physical to the virtual world," Kagan said in an opinion joined by five justices. The verdict was unanimous among the nine justices.
As a result of the firms' trade groups' extensive objections, the justices sent the cases back to lower courts for further proceedings.
While the specifics differ, the goal of both statutes was to put an end to conservatives' long-running claims that social media platforms were biased against the left and engaged in political speech suppression. These issues are just a few of several this term that have the justices mulling about how to define free expression in the internet era.
Republican governors in Florida and Texas signed the bills into law in the months after Facebook and Twitter (now X) decided to deactivate then-President Trump's account due to tweets he made in response to his supporters' assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Companies' trade groups took legal action by suing the federal government, arguing that the regulations infringed upon the free expression rights of the platforms. In a split decision, a federal appeals court affirmed a Texas legislation and knocked down a Florida one. The Supreme Court's decision, however, put a stay on both.
First Amendment scholar and professor at Notre Dame Law School Richard W. Garnett noted that the cases are complex, but that the justices were unanimous on two points:
Not only does the First Amendment safeguard our speech, but it also shields our silence, non-speech, and non-endorsement. In other words, editorial judgment is part of the free speech. It makes no difference whether the speaker is an individual or a major media corporation, he said. "Second, it is not acceptable for the government to control speakers in order to create a more diverse or better marketplace of ideas," the statement said. It is ultimately up to us to decide what is available in that market.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis called the bill "protection against the Silicon Valley elites" in a statement he released upon signing it into law.
To preserve free expression in the "new public square," as Texas Governor Greg Abbott put it, the bill was necessary. Abbott expressed concern about the trend of social media corporations attempting to censor conservative perspectives and ideas, stating that although these platforms "are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely," the trend is concerning. We will not tolerate it in Texas; it is wrong.
However, a lot has transpired in that time. Under Elon Musk's ownership, Twitter underwent a rebranding, lost personnel dedicated to content moderation, let back several individuals previously banned for hate speech and conspiracy theories, and more.
The presidential administration of Joe Biden supported the plaintiffs in their lawsuit, but it urged the court to reach a limited decision that upheld the power of governments to regulate in order to safeguard consumer interests, data privacy, and competitiveness. Attorneys for Trump requested the Supreme Court to maintain the Florida statute in a brief they submitted in the case.
Many people saw the decision as a win for free expression.
Attorney Vera Eidelman of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project argued that the protection of the right to free speech and the ability to access information online hinges on the court's acknowledgment that the government cannot manipulate social media to impose its own vision of acceptable online speech. "The protection of everyone's right to express themselves and access information on the internet depends on the court's acknowledgment that the government cannot manipulate social media to impose its own idea of how online speech should appear."
Free Press senior counsel Nora Benavidez stated that although the ruling "rests on procedural grounds," Justice Kagan's detailed opinion for the Court makes it crystal clear why the laws in Florida and Texas will never pass First Amendment muster. I think that is fantastic.
Academic director of Penn Carey Law School's Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition Gus Hurwitz called it a "bumpy win." Both cases were vacated and sent back to be "more fully developed," he said, since the justices were "clearly frustrated" that the issue was presented to them as a facial challenge, in which the plaintiff contends that the legislation is unconstitutional.
"The state of Texas disapproves of the platforms' content selection and moderation practices and wants them to develop a new expressive product that reflects its values and priorities," states five justices who have signed on to a direct statement. Texas cannot mandate such a choice, according to Hurwitz, because of the First Amendment. "If Texas and Florida go ahead with these statutes, it is hard to see how this will not affect the final decision of the case. It also shows that these statutes will have a bumpy ride."
Just last week, the court rejected a case brought by parties from Missouri, Louisiana, and elsewhere that accused social media companies of being pressured by federal officials to censor conservative viewpoints. This case is just one of several that the justices have dealt with in the last year involving social media platforms.
During their February arguments, the justices gave the impression that they were leaning toward blocking the legislation' implementation. At the time, several justices hinted that they saw the platforms more like newspapers, which have extensive free-speech rights, than like common carriers, the entities that are more vulnerable to regulation, such as telephone companies.
Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, however, gave the impression that they were more inclined to accept the arguments put out by the states. Companies are reportedly trying to get constitutional protection for "censoring other speech," a concept that Thomas brought up. For his part, Alito likened the platforms' content control policies to suppression.
Online marketplaces like Etsy and Uber as well as email and messaging services were among the companies that the judges were concerned would be unintentionally impacted by an overly expansive decision.
