WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 21: The U.S. Supreme Court is seen on February 21, 2024 in Washington, DC. The Court heard oral arguments in Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency and Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
The US Supreme Court is set to make a pivotal decision about what Americans can see on social media as it takes up two cases this week that could transform the internet as we know it.
On Monday, the court will consider arguments on whether to give Texas and Florida significantly more control over social media platforms and their content, highlighting the central role that those services now play in modern American life.
The crux of the matter: Can these platforms decide for themselves what content goes on their sites — and what can be removed?
Platforms like Facebook and YouTube, represented by trade groups NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, known as CCIA, say that both laws infringe upon the free speech rights of companies under the Constitution’s First Amendment by restricting their ability to choose what content they wish to publish on their platforms.
Various other tech companies that routinely moderate user content oppose the laws, including Reddit, Discord and Yelp.
The laws were enacted by the Republican-led states in 2021 after Twitter, Facebook and others banned former President Donald Trump after his effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election ended in his supporters storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
This was before Twitter was taken over the following year by billionaire Elon Musk, who has allied himself with conservative critics of the platform and allowed various banned users, including Trump, to return.
Both laws seek to impose restrictions on content moderation and require companies to provide individualized explanations to users when content is removed.
The Florida law among other things prevents companies from banning public figures running for political office and restricts so-called “shadow banning,” whereby certain user content is made difficult to find by other users. The state claims that such actions are a form of censorship.
The Texas law similarly prevents platforms from banning users based on the views they express. Each law requires the companies to disclose their moderation policies.
The states seek to equate social media companies with the telecommunications industry, which transmits speech but has no editorial input. These so-called “common carriers” are heavily regulated by government.
The Florida law “does little more than require the platforms to adhere to their general business practice of holding themselves open to all comers and content, which is how common-carrier regulation has functioned for centuries,” state Attorney General Ashley Moody wrote in court papers.
The trade groups point out the differences between the telecommunications industry and social media platforms, noting that companies routinely use “editorial discretion” to heighten the user experience by, among other things, restricting spam, trolling and hateful rhetoric.
© Copyright RawNews1st
