Supreme Court could decide the future of social media content moderation

NNext week, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in two cases that could decide the fate of social media content moderation.

In 2021, both Florida and Texas passed laws aimed at addressing social media sites’ content moderation practices and bias against conservative views.The next case to be heard by the Supreme Court Both lawsuits were brought by trade groups representing social media sites, alleging the law violates social media sites’ First Amendment rights to decide what content they publish and promote. claims.

If upheld, the law could dramatically change social media sites by significantly reducing the ability of platforms to edit their news feeds to make them more appealing to users. Regardless of which court decides, the outcome of these two cases could set a precedent for how content moderation will be handled in the United States for decades to come.

What kind of cases are there?

In 2021, both Florida and Texas passed laws limiting the power of the largest social media companies to manage and curate content on their platforms. Republicans across the country are increasingly frustrated with censorship on major social media sites. Republicans hold majorities in the Florida and Texas legislatures.

Florida Senate Bill 7072, signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in May 2021, prohibits social media platforms from “intentionally deplatforming candidates” and prohibits social media platforms from “intentionally deplatforming candidates” and Both mentioned locking President Donald Trump’s accounts. He spoke from the podium after his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2017. The law also requires platforms to publish the standards they use to ban users and content and to apply those standards consistently. Floridians will now be able to sue social media platforms for violating the new law.

Texas House Bill 20 was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott in September 2021. The bill prohibits censorship based on a user’s point of view, the point of view they represent, or their location. Similar to Florida’s bill, it would require social media sites to publicly explain the type of content they remove and why. Texans will also be able to sue social media companies for violating the new law.

What happened so far?

Shortly after each law was passed, industry groups on behalf of social media companies challenged its legitimacy. In both cases, industry groups challenged the bills on the grounds that they violated social media companies’ First Amendment rights, including their right to free speech.

Three days after DeSantis signed the Florida bill, Netchoice, an industry group representing social media platforms such as Google and Facebook, and the Computer Communications Industry Association (CCIA) filed a motion to block and invalidate the bill. sued the state of Florida. The industry group said in its complaint that the law “is a frontal assault on the First Amendment, opening up a free market for ideas unthinkable to traditional media, booksellers, lending libraries, and newsstands.” “This is an extraordinary intervention by the government of the United States.” ”

The case has been heard in US courts ever since. After the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law in June 2021, Florida’s attorney general appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Court of Appeals upheld the preliminary injunction in May 2022, and Florida appealed to the Supreme Court.

Similarly, less than two weeks after Mr. Abbott signed the Texas bill, NetChoice and CCIA issued a statement saying the law violates the First Amendment rights of technology companies. filed a lawsuit against the state.

Shortly before the law went into effect, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas blocked it. The Texas attorney general appealed and won, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March 2022 to reinstate the law. This time, the industry group applied for an emergency injunction from the Supreme Court, which granted it. After the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law in September 2022, industry groups petitioned the Supreme Court to review the decision.

In September 2023, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear arguments in both cases in early 2024.

Why is this important?

The Supreme Court will decide whether “mandatory” mandates (rules requiring platforms to host content that would otherwise not be allowed) violate the First Amendment, and whether reporting and transparency obligations violate them. We plan to make a decision on a case-by-case basis. If the Supreme Court rules in Texas and Florida’s favor, the law would dramatically change the freedom of social media sites in those states to control the content on their sites, extending far beyond their borders. This could have far-reaching implications, says Daphne Keller, director and doctoral student in the Platform Regulation Program at Stanford University’s Cyber ​​Policy Center.

The obligations contained in both the Texas and Florida laws are fairly broad, so a ruling in favor of the Texas and Florida laws could open the door to other content moderation laws. says Keller. For example, conservative states may pass laws similar to those in Texas and Florida that require platforms to post content, while progressive states may require platforms to host certain types of content. It could be banned, she suggests.

And if social media sites are actually required to host all legal content, conservative lawmakers may not like it, she says. “I don’t think the voters of Texas and Florida actually want to go on YouTube and suddenly be flooded with pornographic, fraudulent, pro-anorexia content,” Keller said. “They don’t want their mom to come across Holocaust-denying content when she’s trying to look at family photos on Facebook.”

Regarding reporting and explanation requirements, Keller said the ruling could be relatively limited, allowing only notice and appeal rights, similar to Texas law. Or it could be more expansive, paving the way for many other transparency laws.

Even if the social media companies win and the law is struck down, the court could suggest what other laws are compatible with the First Amendment, Keller said. So no matter which side wins, this lawsuit is likely to shape the future of social media.

What will come now?

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on February 26th. The judge could rule at any time after this, but Keller said the most likely timeline would be for a verdict to be handed down in late June or early July.

All three legal experts Time spoke to emphasized how difficult it is to predict the verdict. But Keller and Clay said that given the public opinions and political leanings of the nine Supreme Court justices, the three liberal-leaning justices favor social media sites in preventing hate speech from being tolerated online. He suggested that there was a high possibility that the court would issue a similar verdict. That way, only two of the more conservative justices would need to take a more pro-business, private property-protecting position to reach a majority decision in favor of social media companies and strike down the law. right.

Even if this happens, it won’t end legal challenges to social media companies by conservatives. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear another social media censorship case in 2024. The lawsuit was originally filed by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt (now a senator), alleging that President Joe Biden and his administration colluded with social media platforms to suppress claims to have done so. Freedom of speech, including information related to COVID-19 and election integrity, in the name of combating misinformation. In March 2023, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the case, with Republicans decrying the partisan “weaponization” of the federal government and Democrats claiming the hearing was spreading lies.

In a September 2023 statement after an appeals court upheld the lawsuit against the Biden administration, the White House said: “This administration has promoted responsible action to protect public health, safety, and security in the face of challenges such as a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our nation.” Our consistent view is that social media platforms have an important responsibility to make independent choices about the information they provide while considering the impact their platforms have on the American people. ”

Both cases stem from conservative concerns about content moderation decisions made by social media companies whose leadership is seen as left-leaning. These concerns don’t seem to be going away anytime soon.

Historically, Calvert says, this is not at all unusual. Whenever a new form of media emerges, such as print, radio, cable television, or even video games, courts decide, based on the specifics of the media, how much First Amendment editorial rights the distributor has. I had to decide if I should have one. For example, in 1994 the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government could require television networks to dedicate some channels to local and public broadcast stations. The arguments to be heard next week could be as historic as those made against other news outlets.

“This decision will be significant,” he says. “Whatever happens, it doesn’t matter.”