The Supreme Court has just agreed to hear these cases, limited to these questions (as articulated by the Solicitor General's brief for the federal government):
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.
The Court declined to grant review on two other questions, though they might still indirectly play a role in the analysis of the first two questions:
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.
I'm traveling today, so I don't have much to add right now, but I thought I'd put up a post so our readers can discuss the matter. I've also written a law review article on this general topic, in Treating Social Media Platforms Like Common Carriers?
The post S. Ct. Will Consider Constitutionality of Laws Limiting Social Media Platform Moderation Decisions appeared first on Reason.com.
