The Supreme Court has ruled out two lawsuits challenging social media laws in Texas and Florida that could overturn how platforms decide which posts to remove and which to promote. Delayed decision.
monday court Asked The lawsuit was filed by technology industry group NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA). The group argues that the law violates First Amendment rights to govern corporate-sponsored speeches.
Republican leaders in Texas and Florida have pushed the bill as a way to combat what they call unfair censorship of conservative views on social media. Major platforms claim they simply enforce terms of service.
NetChoice and CCIA have warned that when social media laws come into force, platforms will be forced to retain messages, even if they make false claims about highly sensitive topics. Examples include “Russian propaganda that claims the invasion of Ukraine was justified, ISIS propaganda that extremism is justified, neo-Nazi and KKK conspiracies denying or supporting the Holocaust, eating disorders, encourage children to engage in dangerous or unhealthy behavior such as The group created an emergency petition to try to block enforcement of Texas law.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a temporary injunction in Texas law without deciding on the merits of the case. The Court of Appeals also temporarily blocked enforcement of Florida’s law. The law remains in limbo until the High Court decides whether to take the case forward.
The court is set to hear two other cases next month that could change the business models of major platforms.In particular, in the Gonzalez v. Google case, the algorithms that facilitate and organize information on websites are used to control communications. We are looking directly at whether you are protected by Section 230 of the Decency Act. A social media company could change how it operates to reduce legal exposure if a court rules that he website should be more responsible for how third-party messages are disseminated. There is a possibility.
NetChoice and CCIA said the court’s request for information was a good sign.
“We are thrilled that the Supreme Court is seriously considering our case and is seeking its view from the Attorney General,” NetChoice attorney Chris Marchese said in a statement. We hope that they will grant the website First Amendment rights and ask the Supreme Court to take the case and find NetChoice and CCIA.”
CCIA President Matt Schruers agreed that the request “underscores the importance of these cases.”
“It is extremely important that the Supreme Court finally resolves this issue,” Schruers said. “Government involvement in decisions made by private companies about what material is published or distributed online would set a dangerous precedent. It protects both: it underestimates the consequences of government control of online speech in democracies.”
Representatives for the attorneys general’ offices for Texas and Florida did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Watch: The messy business of content moderation on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube