The United States supreme court heard arguments on Monday morning in the first of two cases on its docket for the day that pertain to social media platforms and content moderation – the results of which could have big implications for freedom of speech online.
Filed by NetChoice, an association representing the world’s largest social media firms, both cases challenge state laws blocking social media platforms from moderating certain user content or banning users.
The court first heard arguments in the case of Moody v NetChoice, which deals with a Florida law passed in 2021 that prevents platforms from “censoring” certain political candidates and media outlets by means of demonetization or removal. The law would also limit platforms’ ability to label and moderate misinformation from specific sources.
The second case is NetChoice v Paxton, targeting a Texas law that broadly prohibits social media platforms from “censoring on the basis of user viewpoint, user expression, or the ability of a user to receive the expression of others”.
NetChoice, with members including Pinterest, TikTok, X and Meta, has argued these laws violate the first amendment right to free speech of the companies. The association argues that the law unconstitutionally restricts their ability to decide what content is published on their platforms.
Both cases situate themselves in a longstanding Republican argument that tech giants actively censor political speech that is conservative in nature. These claims, though debunked by experts repeatedly, have been aggravated by high-profile incidents like the removal of former president Donald Trump from Meta, X (then Twitter) and YouTube in 2021 after the January 6 Capitol riot. Trump previously filed a brief in support of the law at the center of NetChoice v Paxton, urging the court to uphold it.
These cases are two of several the supreme court has agreed to hear this session that potentially threaten protections extended to social media companies under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which maintains that platforms cannot be held legally liable for how content generated by their users is or is not moderated. Another case will determine whether the White House can legally contact social media companies and request that content be removed.
The court in May 2023 failed to rule on two cases that would have affected section 230 protections and potentially upended the way the internet is moderated.
