The Latest Breaking News from NetChoice

Even as they attack the Biden administration's crusade against "misinformation," Missouri and Louisiana defend legal restrictions on content moderation.

A striking characteristic of last month's oral arguments in the content-moderation cases was the uncertainty about facts. In Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, it was really unclear what the effect of the laws would be in practice. Which businesses and business models would be affected, and how—all of…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moLCz7C6_gQ This episode is about the Netchoice cases, and was recorded right after the oral arguments. You can watch on YouTube, or subscribe on any podcast platform. It's put together by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where I'll be starting as the Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow in May.

The First Amendment restricts governments, not private platforms, and respects editorial rights.

Supreme Court arguments about two social media laws highlight a dangerous conflation of state and private action.

The Supreme Court seems inclined to recognize that content moderation is protected by the First Amendment.

Both states are trying to force tech companies to platform certain sorts of speech.

SCOTUS hears challenge to Texas law restricting large social media companies from banning political posts or users

The Supreme Court appeared reluctant Monday to issue a ruling that would shake up how social media companies operate.

World’s biggest social media firms challenge state laws blocking them from moderating certain content or banning users

These cases raise a critical question for the First Amendment and the future of social media: whether states can force the platforms to carry content they find hateful or objectionable.