Breaking: Supreme Court to Hear Major Pair of Cases Involving Regulation of Social Media Platforms’ Curation or Exclusion of Politician Speech

From today’s order list:

22-277 MOODY, ATT’Y GEN. OF FL, ET AL. V. NETCHOICE, LLC, ET AL.
22-555 NETCHOICE, LLC, ET AL. V. PAXTON, ATT’Y GEN. OF TX
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the Solicitor General in her brief for the United States as amicus curiae.

From the SG brief:

These cases concern laws enacted by Florida and Texas to regulate major social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly known as Twitter). The two laws differ in some respects, but both restrict platforms’ ability to engage in content moderation by removing, editing, or arranging user-generated content; require platforms to provide individualized explanations for certain forms of content moderation; and require general disclosures about platforms’ content-moderation practices. The questions presented are:

  1. Whether the laws’ content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment.
  2. Whether the laws’ individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.
  3. Whether the laws’ general-disclosure provisions comply with the First Amendment.
  4. Whether the laws violate the First Amendment because they were motivated by viewpoint discrimination.

Again, only 1 and 2 are being heard by the Court.

This is going to be a major test of whether social media companies may have their content regulated as though they were government actors or have first amendment rights to include or exclude content of politicians as they see fit, much like newspapers, news websites, and cable and television stations.

It has major implications for efforts to limit election subversion, as I will write about later on.

More from SCOTUSBlog.

Share this: