The United States Supreme Court constructing in Washington, D.C., United States, December 28, 2022.
Celal Guns | Anadolu Agency | Getty’s paintings
The Supreme Court has delayed a call to take two cases difficult social media laws in Texas and Florida that might change how platforms resolve which posts they remove and which they promote.
Court on Monday He asked Attorney General of the US for contributions to cases that were filed by the technology industry groups NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industries Association (CCIA). The groups argue that the regulations violate the First Amendment rights of corporations to find out what speeches they host.
Republican leaders in Texas and Florida promoted the bill as a method to counter what they call the unfair censorship of conservative views on social media. The major platforms maintained that they were simply enforcing their terms of service.
NetChoice and the CCIA have warned that if allowed to enter effect, social media laws will force platforms to store news, even in the event that they make false claims about very sensitive topics. Examples include “Russian propaganda claiming its invasion of Ukraine is justified, ISIS propaganda claiming extremism is justified, neo-Nazi or KKK Holocaust denial or pro-Holocaust screeds, and encouraging children to interact in dangerous or unhealthy behaviors corresponding to eating disorders.” groups wrote in an emergency application looking for to dam the Texas law from going into effect.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a short lived blockade of the Texas law without ruling on the merits. The appeals court also temporarily prevented Florida’s law from taking effect. The regulations remain in limbo because the Supreme Court decides to take up the cases.
Next month, the court is ready to listen to two other cases that might also change the business models of major platforms. Specifically, Gonzalez v. Google directly tests whether algorithms that promote and organize information on web sites could be protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects online services from being held chargeable for their users’ posts. If a court decides that web sites ought to be held more accountable for the way third-party messages are disseminated, social media corporations can change the way in which they operate to scale back their legal exposure.
NetChoice and the CCIA said the court’s request for entry was a very good sign.
“We’re thrilled that the Supreme Court is seriously considering taking our cases and is asking the Attorney General to take up these cases,” NetChoice General Counsel Chris Marchese said in an announcement. “We expect the Attorney General to acknowledge the web sites’ First Amendment rights and call the Supreme Court to take up the cases and find for NetChoice and the CCIA.”
CCIA chairman Matt Schruers agreed that the request “highlights the importance of those cases.”
“It is important that the Supreme Court finally decides this case,” said Schruers, “it could be a dangerous precedent for the federal government to meddle in decisions made by private corporations about what material to post or distribute online. The First Amendment protects each the best to talk and the best to not be compelled to talk, and we should always not underestimate the results of giving the federal government control of online expression in a democracy.”
Representatives from the Texas and Florida Attorneys General’s offices didn’t immediately reply to requests for comment.
WATCH: The Chaotic Case of Content Moderation on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube