Austin, Texas – The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Monday to determine the constitutionality of a Texas law that prohibits social media companies from removing posts or accounts based on viewpoint. This unprecedented regulation has sparked a legal battle between Reddit and the state of Texas after a user filed a lawsuit against the popular online discussion board for kicking him out for using a pejorative term insulting a person’s masculinity. The outcome of this case, along with a related Florida law that prohibits platforms from suspending political candidates’ or media publications’ accounts, will shape the future of social media regulation in the United States.
At the heart of the debate is whether state governments or tech companies have the authority to set the rules for content moderation on social networks. The laws were originally adopted by Republican leaders in response to conservative concerns that social media giants were censoring their political views. However, tech companies, represented by the trade group NetChoice, argue that these laws give the government too much control over online speech, potentially violating the First Amendment and paving the way for a patchwork of state-specific internet laws.
This conflict has ignited a “splinternet” in the United States, where regulations governing the internet diverge along political and state lines. Red states like Texas and Florida are pushing for laws that make it harder for companies to remove content, while blue states like California and New York have passed transparency measures encouraging the removal of violent and harmful posts. The Supreme Court’s ruling in these cases will have far-reaching implications on federal and state efforts to regulate social media companies, impacting issues such as children’s safety and artificial intelligence.
The case also highlights the unusual alignments it has inspired. The Biden administration, despite its tough stance against Silicon Valley, has filed a brief siding with the companies, arguing that the state laws go too far and that the First Amendment protects social networks’ editorial discretion. Conversely, a group of liberal law professors, including former Biden tech adviser Tim Wu, has filed a brief in support of the Republican-led states, warning that a ruling favoring the tech companies could hinder future efforts to regulate social media companies.
The divergent interpretations of how existing law should apply to social media companies have raised complex legal questions for the Supreme Court to consider. NetChoice contends that these companies should be treated as newspapers, allowing them the right to exert editorial control over their services. On the other hand, Florida and Texas argue that the laws regulate companies’ actions, not their speech, and should be considered as common carriers, akin to utilities. Both sides’ arguments have been deemed flawed by First Amendment experts, who call on the court to reach a nuanced decision that takes into account the rapidly evolving nature of social networks.
The outcome of this legal battle will have significant implications for the future of public discourse online. It will explore the extent to which government can regulate social media companies and the balance between free speech and content moderation. The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by late June, will shape the landscape of social media regulation leading up to the 2024 presidential election and potentially set a precedent for how technology and speech are governed in the digital age.