The Supreme Court protects the future of moderation
First Amendment Protections for Social Media Content Moderation and Modification: A High-Sensor Court Decision in the Internet Against Tortuous Behavior
The Supreme Court issued a decision about the future of internet speech on Monday. The court explicitly extended First Amendment protections to how social media platforms organize, curate, and moderate their feeds, drawing a comparison between internet content moderation and “traditional publishers and editors.”
The NetChoice cases are about laws in Texas and Florida that tried to make it harder for large social media companies to control the content on their sites. The legislation came about after conservative politicians criticized major tech companies for allegedly putting bias against conservative viewpoints. Both laws were sued to block them by tech industry groups. The Supreme Court makes the final call after Appeals courts in each state come to different conclusions.
The justices had a number of concurring opinions. Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Jackson was in the majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote concurring opinions, and Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined Alito’s.
The court heard arguments in two cases in February. At that time, a few justices prodded counsel about how the laws would affect tech companies that didn’t seem like a priority when they were written.
Five separate opinions arose because the justices returned the Texas and Florida cases to lower courts for analysis.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that the parties had not briefed the critical issues and the record was underdeveloped.
There was a case that the high court had the potential to rewrite, in regard to free speech on the internet.
Tech Freedom and the X-Meta Maronov 2016 Outburst: Why Social Media Has a First Amendment Legal Importance
It all started when former President Trump was kicked off of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other social media platforms in the wake of the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.
In response, lawmakers in Florida and Texas passed state laws barring social media sites from banning or restricting the reach of political candidates, claiming that conservative voices have been censored by tech companies.
The laws came despite the fact that right-wing commentators have become very skilled at using social media as a megaphone.
The justices were debating in February whether or not X and Meta made a modern day public square that distinguishes them from other private companies.
Tech companies are being told they have to allow accounts that they think should be banned. Past legal cases have also established that social media sites have a First Amendment right to decide what is and is not allowed to be published on their own platforms.
And the question before the court was whether the state laws preventing the platforms from doing something like banning Trump again would represent a violation of the First Amendment.
Silicon Valley has argued that without that discretion, including the ability to suspend or block users, social media sites would be glutted with spam, hate speech and other unsavory content.
Technology companies are protected from lawsuits when their content is hosted on platforms. The law also provides tech companies wide latitude in patrolling speech on their sites.
Section 230 has grown to be a bipartisan punching bag. Conservatives think the law allows platforms to censor right-wing perspectives, whereas liberals think it allows big social media firms to escape accountability for the rise of hate speech.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that it’s protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution to allow social media companies to decide what content is made available on their platforms. The court also ruled that social media platforms have the right to decide what is and is not allowed to be published on their own platforms.