The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it intends to hear two major cases featuring technology industry groups challenging state laws written by Republicans restricting social media content moderation.
One, NetChoice v. Paxton, concerns a law enacted in Texas that puts limits on what content can be banned by platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. A second closely related case, Moody v. NetChoice, relates to a similar law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) in Florida. The justices added 10 other cases to the calendar as the Supreme Court prepares for a new term on Monday.
REPUBLICAN DEBATE: TOP THREE TAKEAWAYS FROM THE CANDIDATES’ LATEST MEETING
The state laws at issue in both NetChoice cases have been temporarily paused by federal courts. The measures strictly impair the ability of social media companies to remove users from their platforms or remove posts, raising concerns among trade groups representing the Big Tech platforms that say the laws would drastically alter free speech on the internet.
Republican lawmakers who support the measures say social media companies have reached too far to throttle some conservative ideas and are too vague in their explanations when a post is subverted or censored. A key moment in that debate peaked in 2021 when Twitter, now known as X, booted former President Donald Trump after the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
Conversely, Big Tech parties and concerned interest groups say the laws would turn social media platforms into more dangerous places and prevent the removal of hate speech or extremism.
Two appeals courts gave conflicting rulings over the state laws, one that upheld the Texas law and another that struck down the Florida statute. By a 5-4 ruling on May 31, 2022, the justices kept the Texas law on hold while litigation continues.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett voted to grant an emergency relief request from two Big Tech industry groups that challenged the law in federal court. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Elena Kagan said they would have allowed the law to remain in effect.
Alito wrote that the application before them last year “concerns issues of great importance that will plainly merit this Court’s review.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news,” Alito said. “At issue is a groundbreaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.”
The justices effectively punted on another social media case before them last term, including a request to dampen legal protections Big Tech companies have for posts by their users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
