- Oct 17, 2011
- 33,295
- 36,611
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
The justices said they would review the new and never-enforced laws from the two largest Republican-controlled states and decide whose rights to free speech are at stake.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said “conservative speech” was under threat. “It’s now the law that conservative viewpoints in Texas cannot be banned on social media,” he said upon signing the bill in 2021.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said his state’s law would hold accountable the “Big Tech censors” who “discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology.”
Both state laws ran into 1st Amendment challenges from the tech industry, and the Supreme Court put them on hold last year in a 5-4 order.
“Throughout our nation’s history, the 1st Amendment’s freedoms of speech and press have protected private entities’ rights to choose whether and how to publish and disseminate speech generated by others,” lawyers for the social media sites said in the Texas appeal.
At issue is the basic legal status of social media sites. Are they private companies with full free-speech rights to shape their content, similar to a newspaper or TV network?
Or are they are “common carriers,” like telephone companies, with a duty to be equally open to all views and subject to government regulation?
Until now, the 1st Amendment and federal law have been understood to protect free speech online by forbidding regulation by the government or through lawsuits against social media platforms.
But Justice Clarence Thomas has suggested the “dominant digital platforms” sites should be seen as common carriers subject to regulation. [Just like the Founders said!]
The Florida case is Moody vs. NetChoice while the Texas case is NetChoice vs. Paxton.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said “conservative speech” was under threat. “It’s now the law that conservative viewpoints in Texas cannot be banned on social media,” he said upon signing the bill in 2021.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said his state’s law would hold accountable the “Big Tech censors” who “discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology.”
Both state laws ran into 1st Amendment challenges from the tech industry, and the Supreme Court put them on hold last year in a 5-4 order.
“Throughout our nation’s history, the 1st Amendment’s freedoms of speech and press have protected private entities’ rights to choose whether and how to publish and disseminate speech generated by others,” lawyers for the social media sites said in the Texas appeal.
At issue is the basic legal status of social media sites. Are they private companies with full free-speech rights to shape their content, similar to a newspaper or TV network?
Or are they are “common carriers,” like telephone companies, with a duty to be equally open to all views and subject to government regulation?
Until now, the 1st Amendment and federal law have been understood to protect free speech online by forbidding regulation by the government or through lawsuits against social media platforms.
But Justice Clarence Thomas has suggested the “dominant digital platforms” sites should be seen as common carriers subject to regulation. [Just like the Founders said!]
The Florida case is Moody vs. NetChoice while the Texas case is NetChoice vs. Paxton.
