One of the biggest Supreme Court cases this year will be a Big Tech challenge to Texas and Florida laws that seek to impose limits and transparency on social media content regulation. Silicon Valley argues that these laws interfere with Big Tech's first amendment right to "cull and curate" what other people say on their platforms. The Biden administration agrees, arguing in its brief that deciding what users can and cannot say is not censorship but the constitutionally protected exercise of editorial judgment: "The act of culling and curating the content that users see is inherently expressive, even if the speech that is collected is almost wholly provided by users."
As a public service, Cybertoonz has boiled the argument down even further:
The post Cybertoonz explains Netchoice v. Paxton appeared first on Reason.com.
