The Supreme Court expressed skepticism Monday about state laws in Texas and Florida designed to stop social media giants from throttling conservative views but also suggested that whatever decision emerges may not be the court’s final word on the significant First Amendment questions raised by the case.
During nearly four hours of oral arguments, the justices appeared divided along non-ideological lines as they wrestled with whether social media companies like Meta and X have have created a “public square” that sets them apart from other private entities.
The justices struggled with sweeping First Amendment questions about whether social media platforms should be treated like “common carriers,” such as telephone companies, that are required to transmit content across their networks regardless of viewpoint or whether they act more like newspaper publishers that can choose which articles to place on the front page.
Despite the high stakes involved and the potential to radically change how millions of Americans get their news and information on the popular sites, several of the justices appeared to be angling for a potential outcome that would keep the laws on hold temporarily and allow lower courts to further review the impact on a wide range of internet sites.
The Texas and Florida laws prohibit online platforms from removing or demoting user content that expresses certain viewpoints — legislation that came in response to accusations from former President Donald Trump and other conservatives that the platforms were hindering conservative perspectives.
Here are the key takeaways from the courtroom:
Online platforms engage in censorship when they silence certain users’ speech, the states argued to the court.
But multiple justices…
Read the full article here