The Supreme Court on Monday kept a hold on efforts in Texas and Florida to limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube, and other social media platforms regulate content posted by their users. The justices returned the cases to lower courts in challenges from trade associations for the companies, reports the AP. While the details vary, both laws aimed to address conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right. The cases are among several this term in which the justices are wrestling with standards for free speech in the digital age.
The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter, now X, to cut then-President Trump off over his posts related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by his supporters. Trade associations representing the companies sued, claiming the laws violated the platforms' speech rights. One federal appeals court struck down Florida's statute, while another upheld the Texas law. Both were on hold pending the outcome at the Supreme Court. When Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Texas law, he said it was needed to protect free speech in what he termed the new public square. Social media platforms "are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely—but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas," Abbott said.
But much has changed since. Elon Musk purchased Twitter and eliminated teams focused on content moderation, welcomed back users previously banned for hate speech, and used the site to spread conspiracy theories. President Biden's administration sided with the challengers, though it cautioned the court to seek a narrow ruling that maintained the government's ability to impose regulations to ensure competition, preserve data privacy, and protect consumer interests.
story continues below
During arguments in February, the justices seemed inclined to prevent the laws from taking effect. Several justices suggested that they viewed the platforms as akin to newspapers that have broad free-speech protections, rather than like telephone companies, known as common carriers, that are susceptible to broader regulation. But two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, appeared more ready to embrace the states' arguments. Thomas raised the idea that the companies are seeking constitutional protection for "censoring other speech." (More US Supreme Court stories.)
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
