News — Marshall Chair of Constitutional Law has offered insight on the cases Moody v. NetChoice & NetChoice v. Paxton, which will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court:
“These cases challenge Texas and Florida laws regulating content moderation policies on large social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube). Both states have rules that limit the ability of the platforms to censor, hide or ban users and that require individualized explanation for actions taken.
At oral argument, a number of justices seemed drawn to the view that the Texas and Florida laws violate the First Amendment rights of social media companies. Content moderation policies were analogized to editorial decisions by newspapers. Private newspaper publishers have a constitutional right to make editorial decisions about whether to publish articles, letters or comments submitted by members of the public. Similarly, under this view, the First Amendment would give social media companies the right to decide whether certain posts should be allowed on their platform or whether access to a post should be restricted in some fashion.
If the Court interprets the First Amendment in the manner suggested at oral argument, social media companies would be able to compete based in part on the way they moderate content. Some companies would seek customers based on the promise of a relatively unfiltered ability to post, while other platforms would appeal to users who want to be more shielded from potentially objectionable content.”
Beck is available for further commentary at [email protected].
RSS