The Supreme Court is deliberating on the future of two state laws that restrict how social media platforms moderate content.
(Photo : Win McNamee/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON - FEBRUARY 05: The U.S. Supreme Court is shown February 5, 2009 in Washington, DC.
Weighing on Social Media Content Moderation
During oral arguments on Monday, the justices engaged in a challenging discussion tackling questions that have the potential to reshape the internet landscape, affecting not only major social networks such as Facebook and TikTok but also platforms like Yelp and Etsy.
TechCrunch reported that the Supreme Court opted to assess two concurrent cases in October, one originating in Florida (Moody v. NetChoice, LLC) and the other in Texas (NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton).
Instigated by laws enacted by Republican governors, these legal proceedings impose obligations on social media corporations to alter their content moderation strategies.
Florida's Senate Bill 7072 prevents social media platforms from imposing limitations on political candidates or their content, while Texas' House Bill 20 prohibits platforms from censoring or demonetizing content based on user viewpoints.
Despite a federal appeals court largely ruling in favor of tech companies in Florida, the Texas appeals court supported the state's position.
Republican lawmakers drafted both laws to penalize social media companies for their alleged anti-conservative bias. Although research does not substantiate these claims, conservative users of social media platforms are disproportionately exposed to political misinformation.
This discrepancy in content moderation decisions by tech companies may contribute to the perception of ideological bias.
Grappling with Modern Internet Challenges
The legal systems in Florida and Texas are caught up in a complex web of old-fashioned laws that were created before terms like "tweet" and "livestream" became common.
Because laws about the internet are outdated, both tech companies and their critics want clear rules. But, as we've seen from how the Supreme Court handled similar cases before, getting that clarity is tough.
During oral arguments, justices spanning the political spectrum expressed doubt about the implications of the two state laws.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised concerns about the broad scope of the legislation, suggesting it could extend its reach to encompass various non-traditional social media platforms beyond the intended targets.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh addressed Florida Solicitor General Henry Whitaker regarding the First Amendment, emphasizing the constitutional protection against the suppression of speech by the government.
However, not all justices seemed aligned with the tech industry's stance, as Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito expressed interest in the state's arguments, with Alito questioning whether content moderation equated to censorship.
Following Monday's hearing, the stance of the majority of justices is becoming clearer, yet uncertainties persist, leaving room for various outcomes. Some justices expressed reservations about the procedural aspects of the cases.
The Supreme Court might deliver a definitive verdict before the term ends in June, or it could choose not to rule directly, opting instead to remand the cases to lower courts for further proceedings, a process that could extend over several years.
Regardless, the Supreme Court will inevitably confront the challenges posed by the internet era. Many existing legal frameworks pertain to traditional media outlets or utility services, failing to fully address the complexities of internet-based businesses serving millions or even billions of users.
Related Article: Supreme Court Temporarily Halts Social Media Communication Restriction for White House Officials
