The Supreme Court has sent cases involving two state laws from Florida and Texas, aimed at preventing viewpoint-based censorship on social media, back to the lower courts.
The cases were brought by NetChoice, an internet trade group that challenged the laws on the grounds that they violated the First Amendment rights of platforms by compelling speech and restricting editorial discretion.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the issues had not been fully briefed and the record was insufficiently developed, necessitating a remand for further consideration of the laws' scope and constitutionality.
Previously, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Florida’s law, which restricted platforms from banning political candidates and journalistic enterprises. Conversely, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Texas’ law, which prevents platforms with over 50 million monthly U.S. users from censoring users or content based on viewpoint. The Fifth Circuit had ruled that corporations do not have an unrestricted First Amendment right to censor speech.
Kagan noted that the Fifth Circuit's analysis was flawed, particularly regarding Facebook’s News Feed and YouTube’s homepage, as the editorial judgments affecting those feeds constitute protected expressive activity.
The Texas law would prohibit social media companies with at least 50 million monthly active users from censoring users based on their viewpoints, allowing users or the Texas attorney general to sue for enforcement.
Florida's law restricts large platforms from censoring or banning political candidates or journalistic enterprises.
Another issue in these cases was whether these state laws unfairly burden social media companies' free speech rights by mandating individualized explanations for content moderation decisions, such as post removals.
