US Supreme Court to Decide on Social Media Laws Impacting Online Free Speech
The US Supreme Court is set to rule on two major social media cases that have significant implications for online free speech. These cases revolve around the question of whether laws enacted by Texas and Florida violate the First Amendment rights of private companies by compelling social platforms to host content they would otherwise remove.
Prominent tech industry organizations, including Meta, X, and Google, have argued that these laws are unconstitutional and infringe on the free speech rights of private companies. Matt Schruers, representing the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), stated that forcing online platforms to treat extremist hate content on par with other forms of expression is not only unwise but also raises constitutional concerns.
The coalitions representing the tech firms challenging these laws assert that online platforms could face legal jeopardy for taking down content involving violence, hate, propaganda from adversarial governments, and spam. Keeping such content accessible could have detrimental financial repercussions, potentially leading to advertiser and user boycotts that could adversely affect their revenues.
The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision, just before the start of its new session, reflects the ongoing challenge of adapting long-standing laws, some dating back to the early days of the digital era, to the rapidly evolving online landscape.
In 2022, the Supreme Court temporarily halted the implementation of the Texas law with a divided vote of five-to-four. The Justices who voted for the temporary hold were John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Conversely, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the temporary hold.
It is worth noting that Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch expressed concerns about the law’s constitutionality but favored allowing its temporary implementation. Meanwhile, Justice Kagan dissented without signing onto Alito’s statement or providing separate reasoning.
The Biden administration has expressed opposition to these laws and voiced their concerns before the Supreme Court. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar emphasized the expressive nature of content curation, even when the majority of content is user-generated. She stressed that any government mandate to alter the presentation of content on covered platforms, such as including content they seek to exclude or organizing it differently, raises clear First Amendment concerns.
As the Supreme Court prepares to make its final decision on these highly impactful social media cases, the outcome will undoubtedly shape the future of online free speech and the responsibilities of social platforms in hosting controversial content.
