Social-media giants win temporary Supreme Court battle, no clarity on free speech

Supreme Court Decision on Social Media Regulation

The Supreme Court issued a temporary win to social media titans such as Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok, returning several free-speech cases to lower courts without resolving the fundamental issue of whether states can limit the authority of these platforms to unilaterally block or remove posts that express certain viewpoints. This decision, taken unanimously, refrained from settling whether dominant social media companies can be restrained by state laws from moderating posts.

Challenges to State Laws

The core of these cases revolved around state statutes in Florida and Texas that sought to curtail the platforms' ability to moderate content. These laws emerged following concerns that posts expressing conservative views were being unduly restricted or removed, especially after the January 6, 2021, US Capitol event. Specifically, the Supreme Court directed the cases back to lower courts, criticizing the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits for not properly analyzing "facial" challenges, which argue an entire law is unconstitutional rather than its application to specific instances.

Support for Free Speech

Chris Marchese of the NetChoice Litigation Center, a technology organization supporting major social media companies, hailed the ruling as a victory for online First Amendment rights. NetChoice, which was actively involved in litigations as both a plaintiff and a defendant in the respective Texas and Florida cases, argued that social media platforms, much like newspapers, have the First Amendment right to curate third-party content on their platforms. The contested Florida law sought to limit the ability of these companies to remove content from journalistic enterprises and de-platform qualified political candidates while mandating consistent application of content moderation policies.

State Law Provisions

Florida’s statute prevented companies from removing journalistic content and de-platforming political candidates, requiring platforms to notify users about censored content. The Texas law prohibited major social media companies from removing any post based on viewpoint. Both laws required platforms to provide explanations for each moderation action taken. Separate appellate courts provided differing rulings on these laws, with one upholding the Florida law and another blocking the Texas law.

Editorial Control and Section 230

Social media companies have consistently pushed back against such regulations, invoking Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects them from liability for user-posted content. The complexity of interpreting and applying these state laws pose additional challenges for social media companies, especially regarding the criteria for safeguarding content from journalistic enterprises. The laws did not clarify how to measure or verify content thresholds, imposing a vague and impractical burden on the platforms.

Related Rulings

In another significant ruling this term, the Supreme Court addressed Murthy v. Missouri, a case questioning whether federal officials violated First Amendment rights by urging social media platforms to remove posts during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election, which were deemed misinformation. In a 6-3 decision, the Court concluded that the plaintiff states and social media users lacked the standing to legally challenge the federal administration's actions in court.