The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed challenges to Florida and Texas laws that restrict how large social media companies moderate user content. The unanimous ruling sends the cases back to their respective Circuit Courts of Appeals for further review.
The court stated that lower courts had not properly analyzed the First Amendment issues at play in the case, specifically regarding the facial nature of the challenges. The court highlighted that the laws might apply differently to various websites and apps, making a “facial challenge” relevant, even when brought under the First Amendment.
Both Florida and Texas laws aim to prevent social media platforms from censoring or shadow banning users based on political viewpoints. They also require platforms to notify users when their content is modified or edited, providing an explanation for the action.
The Florida law prohibits platforms from engaging in censorship, prioritizing, or shadow banning “based on the content,” while the Texas law goes further, preventing the “willful deplatforming” of candidates for public office due to content posted by or about them.
Trade groups representing big tech companies argue that the laws violate their free speech rights by restricting their ability to moderate content. They maintain that their platforms should not be open to offensive or dangerous speech, including bullying, harassment, terrorism, racial hatred, misinformation, and voter fraud.
Republican lawmakers and several GOP-led states supported the laws, filing amicus briefs in the case. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) argued that tech platforms seek liability protections while claiming unfettered censorship rights under the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s decision to send the cases back to lower courts indicates that further legal scrutiny is needed to determine the constitutionality of these laws and their impact on social media platforms and user freedom of expression.
