What happened?
The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in the tech industry’s challenge to Texas and Florida laws that would limit the ability of social media companies to moderate content on their platforms. A majority of justices appeared skeptical that the states were lawfully protecting the free speech rights of users.
Who said what?
The state has a “First Amendment interest in promoting and ensuring the free dissemination of ideas,” said Florida Solicitor General Henry Whitaker. “When the government excludes speech from the public square, that is obviously a violation of the First Amendment,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. But when a “private entity” makes those decisions, that’s protected “editorial discretion.”
The commentary
Kavanaugh’s “straightforward” First Amendment argument is “clearly correct,” but it’s “disconcertingly unclear” whether a majority of justices will agree with him, or let Texas and Florida “weaponize conservative paranoia over Big Tech’s alleged liberal bias” to “turn the most popular websites on earth into unusable quagmires of hate and extremism,” Mark Joseph Stern said at Slate. These laws aren’t great, but the justices shouldn’t let Facebook and YouTube “hijack the concept of free speech and make it into their own broad cloak of protection” against “accountability,” Tim Wu said at The New York Times.
What next?
The ruling is expected in late June. Kavanaugh and three other justices “strongly pushed back against the laws,” but it “takes five justices to reach a majority,” Chris Geidner said at Law Dork.
A majority of justices appeared skeptical that Texas and Florida were lawfully protecting the free speech rights of users
