Supreme Court to hear social media cases with free speech implications
Supreme Court to hear social media cases with free speech implications
US Supreme Court Takes on Landmark Social Media Cases with First Amendment Implications
“Telling private websites they must give equal treatment to extremist hate isn’t just unwise, it is unconstitutional, and we look forward to demonstrating that to the Court.” – Matt Schruers
“These massive corporate entities cannot continue to go unchecked as they silence the voices of millions of Americans.” – TX Attorney General Ken Paxton
The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear two significant social media cases with far-reaching consequences for online speech. The court, dominated by conservatives, will assess whether laws passed by Texas and Florida infringe upon the First Amendment rights of social platforms by compelling them to host content they would otherwise block.
Tech industry groups, including Meta, X (formerly Twitter), and Google, argue that these laws are unconstitutional and violate the private companies’ First Amendment rights. Matt Schruers of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), one of the trade associations challenging the legislation, believes that forcing private websites to treat extremist hate content equally is not only unwise but also runs counter to the constitution. The CCIA views the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the cases as encouraging.
The groups representing the tech companies contesting the laws assert that if they were legally required to leave violent or hateful content, propaganda from hostile governments, and spam on their platforms, they would face significant legal risks. However, removing such content could also have adverse consequences for their business, as it might lead to advertiser and user boycotts.
On the other hand, proponents of the Republican-sponsored state laws argue that social media companies exhibit bias against conservatives and engage in illegal censorship of their views. Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, who recently survived an impeachment trial involving allegations of abuses of office, bribery, and corruption, argues that these corporate entities must not be allowed to silence the voices of millions of Americans.
Appeals courts, all with Republican-appointed judges, have issued conflicting rulings regarding the validity of these laws, further complicating the matter. In 2022, the US Supreme Court voted five to four to put the Texas law on hold while the legal battles continued. Justices John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett voted to prevent the law from taking effect, while Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, clarified that while he hadn’t come to a definitive conclusion on the law’s constitutionality, he would have allowed it to remain in effect during the legal proceedings. The dissenting Kagan neither affirmed nor offered separate reasoning to support Alito’s statement.
The Biden administration stands against these laws, with Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar asserting that the curation and moderation of content by social media platforms is an expressive act protected by the First Amendment. According to Prelogar, since the platforms’ main product is the display of expressive content, any government requirement to display different content, including content they wish to exclude or organize content in a different manner, clearly implicates the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s decision to take on these landmark cases amplifies the significance of the First Amendment in the digital era. The outcome will have profound implications for social platforms, their moderation practices, and the rights of users to express themselves freely. It remains to be seen how the Court will balance the need to prevent the spread of harmful content with protecting the principles of free speech.
