The US government conveyed its suggestion to the Supreme Court, urging a reversal of the 5th Circuit Court's verdict that upheld a contentious social media law in Texas, potentially carrying extensive ramifications for the trajectory of online speech in the digital era.
(Photo : Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 26: U.S. President Joe Biden speaks as he announces a $42 billion investment in high-speed internet infrastructure during an event in the East Room of the White House on June 26, 2023 in Washington, DC.
Urging Supreme Court to Reassess Social Media Law
The Biden administration made a plea to the Supreme Court on Monday, urging the court to address the question of whether Florida and Texas can legally prevent large social media companies from removing posts based on their content.
Bloomberg reported that this request came as the court was deliberating whether to take up the case. Additionally, the administration's submission advised the court to rule in favor of the companies should the case proceed.
Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar asserted that "The First Amendment protects the content moderation activities of these platforms," underscoring the administration's position in the matter. The laws in Florida and Texas, while sharing similarities yet not being identical, largely stemmed from conservative discontent.
Advocates of these laws contended that they were necessary to tackle what they perceived as Silicon Valley's censorship, particularly exemplified by the suspension of President Donald J. Trump's accounts on certain platforms following the events of the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack.
She conveyed in her statement that the actions taken by these companies constitute protected free expression under the First Amendment.
In response to the Supreme Court's request, Prelogar's statement paves the path for the panel to consider these cases in the upcoming term. These cases are under close scrutiny, particularly by tech companies and conservative political figures.
The New York Times reported that this attention stems from the fact that similar bills have been introduced by conservative politicians in various state legislatures nationwide. The possibility of the Supreme Court reviewing either one or both of the rulings was already significant even prior to the administration's submission of its brief.
Challenging the Laws
Two trade groups, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, contested the laws, contending that the First Amendment restricts the government from dictating how private companies should handle the dissemination of speech.
In the case of the Florida law, The Washington Post reported that it enforces fines on major social media platforms that decline to share viewpoints of politicians who violate their guidelines.
Differing in specifics, the Texas law, as Judge Andrew S. Oldham pointed out, maintains a distinct approach. He remarked that while the Florida law "forbids all censorship of certain speakers," the Texas law "restricts some censorship of all speakers" based on the viewpoints they express.
In a statement, the CCIA expressed that this particular case closely aligns with what is typically brought before the Supreme Court. The organization pointed out that the case revolves around a significant Constitutional matter and is further complicated by differing decisions made by appellate courts.
In contrast, Prelogar held that the Supreme Court need not consider every aspect of the tech companies' contentions. These companies have raised concerns about certain parts of the social media laws, which mandate them to reveal specifics about their content moderation guidelines, asserting that these provisions also violate the Constitution.
Related Article: SC Justice Clarence Thomas Wants to Fix Social Media: Take Away Power to Self-Regulate With New Laws
