One justice said the case contains ‘a bunch of land mines.’ It could impact other states’ efforts to regulate social media for minors

By Hanna Seariac

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday to determine if states can prohibit social media companies from banning users based on political speech if that speech violates the platform’s policies.

The justices are grappling with how the First Amendment should be applied on social media platforms based on two cases: Moody v. NetChoice in Florida and NetChoice v. Paxton based out of Texas.

The Florida law would stop social media companies from banning the accounts of political candidates and media publications, while the Texas law says platforms can’t moderate content based on a person’s point of view.

The justices are expected to hand down a decision on both cases this spring. The decision could have implications for further legislation around social media companies.

Henry Whitaker, Florida’s solicitor general, argued the courts should treat these companies like phone carriers.

Whitaker said “the design of the First Amendment is to prevent the suppression of speech, not to enable it. That is why the telephone company and the delivery service have no First Amendment right to use their services as a choke point to silence those they disfavor.”

Paul Clement, an attorney representing NetChoice, a social media industry group, argued Florida’s law interfered “with editorial discretion.” Citing Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, a 1974 case where the court decided newspapers are not required to publish replies from candidates to editorials, Clement said, “Indeed, given the vast amount of material on the internet in general and on these websites in particular, exercising editorial discretion is absolutely necessary to make the websites useful for users and advertisers.”

One of the basic questions at hand is will the court treat social media companies more like a phone carrier or more like a newspaper?

This question has First Amendment implications — both Whitaker and Clement cited the right to free speech in their arguments.

https://www.deseret.com/2024/2/26/24083896/supreme-court-florida-and-texas-social-media-laws